6-3 vote: Kennedy wrote majority opinion; Thomas (!) wrote a concurring opninion). Rehnquist wrote dissenting opinion, joined by Scalia; O'Connor split, agreed with specific facets of majority and dissenting opinions.

ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION (00-795)

NY Times Analysis (reg. required)

No shock that Clarence Thomas was in the majority in striking down the internet child pronography law. And no ... it's not that Justice Thomas would be a reliable pro-porn vote. He's consistently been the most reliable and intellectually honest voice on the Supreme Court on first amendment/free speech issues. A lot of folks have never read any of Thomas's opinions on first amendment matters and just assume he's an ultra-right wing loon because the NPR commentators told them so.

PS: I am in total and complete mourning over the recent loss of the greatest and most important Justice of the 20th Century, the only Heisman trophy winner to serve on the high court (and somehow, I don't think Gino Torretta is going to join him in that elite club): BYRON "WHIZZER" WHITE.

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

[quote]Originally posted by Charlie in the Trees:
it's not that Justice Thomas would be a reliable pro-porn vote

---

Judging from his video store rental records, I would have thought "he knows it when he sees it"
[quote] He's consistently been the most reliable and intellectually honest voice on the Supreme Court on first amendment/free speech issues

---

Joke Alert

Or is it that his deciding vote in St. Mary's Honor Center vs. Hicks made the life of an employer's attorney easier?
[quote]I am in total and complete mourning over the recent loss of the greatest and most important Justice of the 20th Century, the only Heisman trophy winner to serve on the high court (and somehow, I don't think Gino Torretta is going to join him in that elite club): BYRON "WHIZZER" WHITE.

---

Maybe the best thing about White was his nonconforming "own way" approach, maybe the strangest was his almost rabid hatred of the press, which many theorize came from the coverage he received when he was playing football (and he despised the nickname).

A lot of people think Kennedy would have been pissed to have seen him go conservative, but then in retrospect the Kennedys weren't ever all that liberal. And when you consider his no on Miranda, his parasite-hugging in Roe ...... and guess who wrote the majority opinion in Bowers vs. Hardwick ??? Yup, the Wiz-man

Lastly, I think Gino Torretta is quite happy - he's making scads of $$$ as a stockbroker in Boca Raton, bringing in the rich alte kokkers to gaze at the Heisman Trophy before convincing them to buy this year's Enron .......

Edited for UBB and typo

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: Wurm ]

Good for the Court for getting this one right. No need to outlaw "Romeo & Juliet" or "Lolita."

[quote]Originally posted by Charlie in the Trees:
I am in total and complete mourning over the recent loss of the greatest and most important Justice of the 20th Century

---

C'mon CITT, William O. Douglas has been gone quite a while now!

Speaking of Bowers ... the decision in that is a disgrace to 20th century jurisprudence as much as Plessy was to the 19th century and sealed my enduring enmity to the ass**** who would dream up such hateful and faulty logic - regardless of whether the decision was correct constitutionally. IT WAS CRAPPY CRAP CRAP CRAPPITY CRAP! White was a punk (but I'm by no means happy he or anyone else is dead).

Anyway, what's up? Are sodomy laws here to stay forever? Is there any way this or any future Supreme Court will take another challenge to them? For heaven's sake, it's 2002! 90% of adult American men have gotten their dicks sucked!

The most hilarious thing is that the penalty for sodomy is jail time. Ya, nothing will get rid of sodomy like PRISON!!!

The sad thing about Bowers is that we lost 5-4 on the equivalent of a last-second field goal. Justice Lewis Powell regretted his vote on Hardwick -- "he initially voted in favor of Michael Hardwick, but changed his mind at the last minute, and was the decisive vote" (from a Linda Greenhouse obit)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bridgeportjake:
[QB]Speaking of Bowers ... the decision in that is a disgrace to 20th century jurisprudence as much as Plessy was to the 19th century and sealed my enduring enmity to the ass**** who would dream up such hateful and faulty logic - regardless of whether the decision was correct constitutionally. IT WAS CRAPPY CRAP CRAP CRAPPITY CRAP! White was a punk (but I'm by no means happy he or anyone else is dead)."

Fortunately, BPJ, the Supreme Court looks to the Constitution to determine if laws are constitutional, not to their emotions or the strength (or weakness) of name-calling. While I disagree with White's decision, it cannot be described as either hateful or full of faulty logic; that distinction belongs to then-Chief Justice Burger's concurrence. White's decision was carefully written and took care to emphasize that it was not judging on the morality of homosexuality, but merely the law in question. In fact, a careful read of his opinion reveals that the respondent's claim that private homosexual acts had a "long tradition of protection under our laws" was both legal and historical nonsense. It's reckless claims like those that lose us the friends we've got and increase the public's perception of gays as essentially irrational. To quote from Justice Scalia's dissent in Romer v. Evans, the Colorado Amendment 2 Case,, "a fit of spite" like your post will alienate others from us just as well.

With advance apologies to the non-lawyers out there . . .

The postscript to Bowers, for all you pessimists out there, is that the Georgia Supreme Court struck down the sodomy statute at issue in Bowers in the late 1990's, finding that it conflicted with the right to privacy enshrined in the Georgia state constitution. I'm not sure that prosecutions for sodomy happen too much even in places where the laws still stand, nor that fear of such prosecutions deeply impacts too many people. True, sodomy laws are symbols of an attitude problem, but they're pretty far down the list of things we need to worry about.

Wurm, the exclamation point after Justice Thomas's name is hardly warranted. Justice Thomas is among the most consistent free speech supporters on the current court. The left-right paradigm through which the media like to filter Supreme Court jurisprudence is essentially useless from an intellectual standpoint, and grossly misleading to laymen who read or listen to it. I get the need to simplify the aracana of judicial decisions for the lay person, but the left-right schtick is just way too inaccurate to be a good simplification.

And CITT: While Justice White, may he rest in peace, was, by all accounts, a great guy, he was hardly an outstanding justice. He was a straight law-and-order guy on criminal justice issues (notably dissenting from the majority opinion in Miranda), among other flaws. (While I am ardently pro-choice as a matter of policy, I will grant that Whizzer was probably right to dissent from the fairly outlandish and extra-constitutional analysis of Roe).

edited because I read Wurm's post carelessly the first time.

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: Skiguy ]

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: Skiguy ]

GMGINSFO:

You make a valid point in your post about the way in which one attacks opinions not to one's liking. But Justice White's opinion in Bowers while logical, was nonetheless deeply flawed, because it started from an untenable premise: that Mr. Bowers was asserting a "fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy." With the question thus framed, the constitutional answer is plain: there is no such fundamental right.

As the dissent points out, the majority opinion deliberately misstated what Bowers was asserting, which was simply the right to privacy that, like it or don't, has been enshrined in the Constitution since at least Griswold (a 1960's case striking down a Connecticut ban on birth control), and part of the discourse on constitutional theory since Justice Brandeis's immortal dissent in Olmstead in the 1920s.

Bowers was wrongly decided, and its reasoning has never since, in almost 20 years, been relied on again by the Court, despite numerous cases where that reasoning might have applied.

edited for UBB code and spelling.

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: Skiguy ]

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: Skiguy ]

[quote]Originally posted by Skiguy:
I'm not sure that prosecutions for sodomy happen too much even in places where the laws still stand, nor that fear of such prosecutions deeply impacts too many people. True, sodomy laws are symbols of an attitude problem, but they're pretty far down the list of things we need to worry about.

---

In Texas there is currently a prosecution of the state sodomy law winding its way up the judicial ladder.
Also, several municipal and private institutions have been successful in getting discrimination based on sexual orientation allowed in Texas because homosexuality implies homosexual acts which are a felony in the state of Texas.
There are two threads of justice in Texas; the criminal thread culminates in the Texas Supreme Court; the civil thread culminates in the Court of Appeals.
Discrimination cases can only go to the Court of appeals. That court, while not endorsing discrimination against homosexuals, has declined to strike down the sodomy laws because since it is a criminal statute, they have no jurisdiction.
So sodomy laws, whether they are prosecuted or not, have real effects in the states that have them.

[quote] So sodomy laws, whether they are prosecuted or not, have real effects in the states that have them.

---

The point is well taken. But then again, the example used was Texas, and this would be only one of a long, long list of reasons why Texas is a cancer on the Union.


edited for UBB

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: Skiguy ]

[quote]Originally posted by Skiguy:
But then again, the example used was Texas, and this would be only one of a long, long list of reasons why Texas is a cancer on the Union.
[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: Skiguy ]

---

Carefuly there, I notice you don't locate yourself. Most states, locales, municipalities and the like have their little exploitable foibles. If you're not willing to put yours up for ridicule, probably best to keep off of others'

[quote]Carefuly there, I notice you don't locate yourself. Most states, locales, municipalities and the like have their little exploitable foibles. If you're not willing to put yours up for ridicule, probably best to keep off of others'

---

Two possibilities:

1. The little smiley at the end of my post was too subtle an indication for you that I was joking (although I'll admit that my use of the word "cancer" was a bit strong for a joke).

2. You have no sense of humour.

For the record, Chicago currently. But I've lived in more parts of this great land (and the world, for that matter) than most, and I'm unlikely to take umbrage at the occasional snark against any of my one time homes (all of which, as you note, are vulnerable).

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: Skiguy ]

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: Skiguy ]

Sorry, forgot my own smiley, but did notice yours. Sometimes the humor gets a little dry

Not that it was a big mistake or anything, but it was a mistake. The Court of Appeals in Texas is officially the Court of Criminal Appeals and is the hightest court in Texas to take criminal cases. The Supreme Court of Texas only decides on civil cases. Thus my earlier message is 180 degrees from reality. You can read more about the current situation at this site.