Clarence Thomas is more progressive in this gay-rights opinion than the Obama administration

[PeaceNikki]

was in theirs.

I join Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today “is … uncommonly silly. 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 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.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas/Dissent_Thomas

[camera obscura]

1. oh boy.

[vaberella]

2. +1. n/t

[NY_CJ]

3. Comedy gold.

[stray cat]

4. So is Cheney - but I prefer an Obama presidency to a Cheney presidency

[PeaceNikki]

5. Well, of course. But that doesn't make it right.

As HRC said:
"When President Obama was courting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender voters, he said that he believed that DOMA should be repealed. We ask him to live up to his emphatic campaign promises, to stop making false and damaging legal arguments, and immediately to introduce a bill to repeal DOMA and ensure that every married couple in America has the same access to federal protections. "

[Uzybone]

6. Cheney-Thomas 2012!

Free porn in your torture cells.

[PeaceNikki]

7. If you think that's what I am implying, you're wrong.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PeaceNikki]

9. Perhaps I am, but I am correct.

Thomas' opinion I cited was far more progressive than the Obama DoJ's in theirs.

[OKNancy]

10. Who said this...?

For the record, I opposed DOMA < the Defense of Marriage Act > in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying. This is an effort to demonize people for political advantage, and should be resisted ... .

When Members of Congress passed DOMA, they were not interested in strengthening family values or protecting civil liberties. They were only interested in perpetuating division and affirming a wedge issue. ...

Despite my own feelings about an abhorrent law, the realities of modern politics persist. While the repeal of DOMA is essential, the unfortunate truth is that it is unlikely with Mr. Bush in the White House and Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress. ...

We must be careful to keep our eyes on the prize—equal rights for every American. We must continue to fight for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. We must vigorously expand hate-crime legislation and be vigilant about how these laws are enforced. We must continue to expand adoption rights to make them consistent and seamless throughout all 50 states, and we must repeal the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' military policy.

I know how important the issue of equal rights is to the LGBT community. I share your sense of urgency. If I am elected U.S. Senator, you can be confident that my colleagues in the Senate and the President will know my position

[PeaceNikki]

11. The same guy who's administration heralded DOMA as a "good law" that saves the government money.

[OKNancy]

12. LOL - what a laugher

Thomas voted FOR keeping the Texas sodomy law in your stated case. He may have written this note, but he still voted to keep the law ( It was 6-3)

He also voted against gay scoutmasters

[PeaceNikki]

13. You seem to be under the impression that I view Thomas as a "good guy". I don't.

And hence the outrage that someone as awful as him would write an opinion more progressive than that of Obama's DoJ.

Laugh your little heart out, but I don't see the humor in it.

[pinto]

14. You inadvertantly dropped part of the quote, completely reversing it's meaning. In full it reads -

Thomas adds to Scalia's dissent (for the minority):

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.”
********************************************************

Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court (for the majority):

Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.

*****************************************************

It was a jab at Kennedy, I think. He and the majority overturned the Texas state finding in the case on the grounds of "unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home". This side-stepped the more contentious issue of whether there was a "general right of privacy" in the Constitution.

[bluedawg12]

16. The full quote does not appear to have the reverse meaning.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas/Dissent_Thomas
Justice Thomas, dissenting.

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 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.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas/Dissent_Thomas"


.........


The opinion has two parts.

In the first part, he clearly states, "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."

In the second part, he states he does not find the right to privacy in the Constitution nor Bill of Rights.

While I disagree with the carefully chosen conservative language about, "expressing sexual preference" as opposed to sexual orientation, he also clearly indicates that prosecuting such an expression between consenting adults for non-commercial use, is not a worthy of criminal investigation nor prosecution.
This was a relevant opinion because prior to Lawrence v. Texas such private activities were illegal and, in that case, similar to DADT, it was a third party who intruded on a private matter to report a human activity as a crime. That reversal is quite a concession from a conservative, whom, I might expect to wish to continue to purge gay adult, consensual, non-commercial sexual activity by giving such an activity the status of a crime.

In effect, it is also a condemnation of DADT, which also purges gay adult, consensual, non-commercial, sexual activity by giving such an activity the status of a violation of military code and wastes valuable military talent through the discharge process and expends military judicial and administrative resources for an activity that does not merit such expenditure.

[KingFlorez]

15. Please

I don't care what Clarence said, he doesn't deserve any propping here.

[Cha]

17. Really. n/t

[firedupdem]

18. Ha! now he's a hero of some sort? When did that happen? n/t

[Boomerang Diddle]

19. LOL!

Did you attend Liberty University by chance?