Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (2729)	6/27/2003 1:44:36 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793903

Definately the worst case of judicial activism in many long year. May be a Pyrric victory, as Scalia foreshadowed in his dissent that the reasoning in Kennedy's opinion may apply to striking down Roe. CNN notes the ramifications as well: CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said the decision appeared to strike down most laws governing private sexual conduct, but he said laws governing marriage would be unaffected. (Full story) Laws that might be most vulnerable would be ones that govern fornication and adultery, said Diana Hassel, associate professor of law at the Roger Williams University. And while Hassel said "only a handful" of states remain with such laws, Thursday's Supreme Court ruling establishes a benchmark in privacy that had not existed. "This is going to carve out protection for private sexual behavior," Hassel said. "As long as it's between consenting adults, this ruling would appear to cover it." cnn.com This is a disastrous ruling. Bar none. Derek

To: LindyBill who wrote (2729)	6/27/2003 8:25:50 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 793903

Who knows how this case will generalize itself. It doesn't necessarily lead to anything else, though I wish it would. I would love to see gay marriage made constitutional but I don't see how the privacy cases extend to that. No doubt Derek will help me on that score. And we can both argue the court should now insist on gay marriage as a constitutional right. On second thoughts, I can see two outcomes. The first is, as a Stanford Law School prof said last night on PBS, in states in which gay sex was criminalized, gays were discriminated against on the grounds that they had been deemed criminal. That will stop. Second, the farther right will now have a new litmus test for all Bush court appointees--opposition to this case.