The Gang of Three
When a Supreme Court decision comes down 6-3, one can almost always guess who the three are going to be: Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist. Today, the Supremes voted to strike down a Texas law that punishes homosexuality 6-3: six voting in favor of a free country; three voting in favor a free country in name only. Like I wrote a couple of days ago, the Power Trio should not even bother showing up for work, one always knows how they will vote. According to the AP, Scalia even goes so far as to claim that the court "has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda."
The basic facts of the case are: the police, on an erroneous tip, raided a dwelling in which two men were engaged in consensual sex and issued a citation. One could understand a citation for finding love on a park bench, but a private dwelling should be just that: private.
Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist, presumably under the rubric of "State's rights" and no guarantee of the right of privacy in the Constitution, think it's a good idea for the government to take a stand against the sexual practices of consenting adults. The case against the guaranteed right to privacy is a red herring, relying on a strict interpretation of what the Framers may have meant in a vastly different time and certainly a different culture. "State's Rights" is just another way for the Fearsome Threesome (I mean threesome, in a non-sexual way, of course) to have their cake and eat it. When they agree with a silly state law, they cling to state's rights, when they don't agree with a state law, the state oversteps its boundaries.
Keep in mind that Scalia and Thomas are two of the President's favorite Justices.
|
When a Supreme Court decision comes down 6-3, one can almost always guess who the three are going to be: Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist. Today, the Supremes voted to strike down a Texas law that punishes homosexuality 6-3: six voting in favor of a free country; three voting in favor a free country in name only. Like I wrote a couple of days ago, the Power Trio should not even bother showing up for work, one always knows how they will vote. According to the AP, Scalia even goes so far as to claim that the court "has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda."
The basic facts of the case are: the police, on an erroneous tip, raided a dwelling in which two men were engaged in consensual sex and issued a citation. One could understand a citation for finding love on a park bench, but a private dwelling should be just that: private.
Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist, presumably under the rubric of "State's rights" and no guarantee of the right of privacy in the Constitution, think it's a good idea for the government to take a stand against the sexual practices of consenting adults. The case against the guaranteed right to privacy is a red herring, relying on a strict interpretation of what the Framers may have meant in a vastly different time and certainly a different culture. "State's Rights" is just another way for the Fearsome Threesome (I mean threesome, in a non-sexual way, of course) to have their cake and eat it. When they agree with a silly state law, they cling to state's rights, when they don't agree with a state law, the state oversteps its boundaries.
Keep in mind that Scalia and Thomas are two of the President's favorite Justices.
|
<< Home