response 19 of 191:

Jun 29 16:39 UTC 2003

I want to know why bruce is so interested in what folks do in their 
bedrooms. 

resp:17 - well, probably a person *could* grow pot in their home just 
for their own use but I dont see anyone using this precedent in a drug 
case. 

response 21 of 191:

Jun 29 22:44 UTC 2003

Prostitution also contributes to the spread of disease.

response 23 of 191:

Jun 29 23:52 UTC 2003

Prostitution is commerce, and some things which are legal to swap
via non-commercial exchanges are unlawful to ask money for (e.g.
children, human organs).  None of that is going to change, so
prostitution's status isn't likely to either.

Prostitution also involves issues of public health, in the same way
that any kind of promiscuous sexuality does.  For that reason, it
deserves to be regulated.

response 25 of 191:

Jun 30 01:03 UTC 2003

I think Nevada has had success with regulated prostitution.

response 27 of 191:

Jun 30 04:23 UTC 2003

...Not that there's anything wrong with it....

I've heard that Scalia is one of the brightest minds on the bench.
(A powerful witch, but a bad witch.)  Does he really not realize
that this has no more to do with the "homosexual agenda" than his
objections are part of the "'moral majority' agenda"?

Actually, here's what he said:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/scotus/lwrnctx62603opn.pdf

        [The Court] has largely signed on to the SO-CALLED homosexual
        agenda by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual
        activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has
        traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.

Well, by that standard, a majority of Americans support this "agenda".


But in the next paragraph, Scalia makes reference to the "culture war":

        It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the
        culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral
        observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed.
        Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual
        conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their
        children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders
        in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their
        families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and
        destructive.

I see. That many of these same people similaraly "viewed" miscegnation laws
seems to be lost on Scalia. Not to mention that they are just "protecting
themselves" from falling property values should a mixed couple (let alone a
full-blown black couple) move into the neighborhood, even if as boarders....

The truth of the matter is that it was the Court, in the 1986 Bowers v.
Hardwick case, which took the wrong side in the culture war. It lost,
precisely because that was a bad decision based on an "agenda" rather
than one made as "neutral observer". (That was a 5-4 decision, and Justice
Lewis Powell later stated that it was his one vote he wished he could change.)

It's almost surprising that the most egregious of sodomy laws (which
prohibit sexual behavior unequally, prohibiting it only to homosexuals)
managed to stay on the books for so long following the ruling that
Colorado's Amendment 2 was unconstitutional.

response 29 of 191:

Jun 30 05:51 UTC 2003

Not just "probably" - absolutely. 

response 31 of 191:

Jun 30 13:10 UTC 2003

That doesn't work.  Legislators don't want to spend time getting rid of old
laws, because they want to focus on passing new ones to protect their special
interests.  They almost never go back and get rid of old ones that aren't
being enforced much anyway.

response 33 of 191:

Jun 30 15:43 UTC 2003

This is not some musty old hardly-noticed law we're talking about.  Texas
enacted it in the late 1970s, and I think it went into effect 1/1/1980.
Moreover, the case came to the Supreme Court because TWO GUYS WERE
PROSECUTED under it.

The same law also makes dildos illegal in Texas.

response 35 of 191:

Jun 30 19:59 UTC 2003

Re #27: Everyone who reads Scalia's frothing dissent should remember
that this is the guy Bush has pointed to as an example of the type of
justice he wants to appoint.  Read the whole thing, too -- he spends a
good chunk of it arguing that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

Re #30: I believe a Michigan state rep has proposed legislation to
repeal Michigan's anti-sodomy law.  His reasoning was that the law is
now invalid, and repealing it will prevent the state from having to
spend money in a doomed attempt to defend it later if someone decides to
try to prosecute under it.

response 37 of 191:

Jun 30 23:12 UTC 2003

Could be.  I don't remember right now who introduced the legislation,
but it was a Democrat.

response 39 of 191:

Jul 1 01:00 UTC 2003

A sure way to get removed from jury duty on grounds of being an unpredictable
weirdo would probably be to respond to "are you married?" with "on the advice
of my attorney, I decline to answer."

response 41 of 191:

Jul 1 02:45 UTC 2003

Re #38:  Possibly.  Michigan's never had common-law marriage as far as I
         know, so even if they changed the obsolete cohabitation law, it's
         not clear that we'd have common-law marriage.

Re #40:  If that were the only argument, you'd be right.