please check out the anti-mandate news »

« prev   random   next »


Legal Philosophy must be Constrained

By AmericanKulak follow AmericanKulak   2021 Sep 11, 1:31pm 83 views   0 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share      

Here is Thomas' Dissent from Lawrence_v._Texas:

I join Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today “is … uncommonly silly.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. <>My duty, rather, is to “decide cases ‘agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.’ ” Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I “can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy,” ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the “liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions,” ante, at 1.

"Spatial and more transcendent dimensions" sounds a lot like the "Penumbra of Privacy" used to nullify abortion laws in Roe V. Wade.

Simply word-salad pablum puked up to reverse centuries of non-controversial laws.

Scalia's dissent is far more verbose:

The Founding Fathers said only a VIRTUOUS Republic could stand, not one of anything goes Libertopians.

It's interesting that the same people who declaim the right to SODOMY and ABORTION on PRIVACY grounds, are mostly the same people who want mandatory VACCINE JABS and demand you prove it everywhere.
no comments found

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions