Title: Message
With
Kennedy writing for 5 justices (and O'Connor concurring in the judgment), the S.
Ct. invalidated the Texas sodomy statute--and by implication all other sodomy
statutes. The Court relies on substantive due process and explicitly
overrules Bowers. Kennedy cites and relies
Title: Message
YAY
- Original Message -
From:
Conkle, Daniel
O.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 7:53
AM
Subject: Bowers Overruled
With
Kennedy writing for 5 justices (and O'Connor concurring in the judgment), the
S. Ct
Title: Message
Justice Kennedy's majority opinion seems to
endorse a substantive due process liberty to engage in private consensual adult
sexual acts, "absent injury to a person or abuse of an institution that the law
protects."
This language seems to me designed to (possibly)
shield laws
Does anyone know what happened to the case involving differential
punishment for statutory rape? I must have missed it.
At 09:53 AM 6/26/2003 -0500, you wrote:
With Kennedy writing for 5 justices (and O'Connor concurring in the
judgment), the S. Ct. invalidated the Texas sodomy statute--and by
ion that the Court was
about to overrule Bowersdirectly.
Marty Lederman (a proud memberof "the
lawprofession's anti-anti-homosexual
culture" (see Scalia, J., dissenting, at p.19))
- Original Message -
From:
Parry, John
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 12:29
PM
age -----
From:
Parry, John
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 12:29
PM
Subject: Re: Bowers Overruled
I've
just skimmed the opinions, and they generated several questions.
First,
after several years of the court being unable to figure out an approach
to substantive
Maybe the strategy of insisting that Lawrence is (really) a sort of
fundamental rights case is mistaken. (Certainly libertarians will
think it is.) Maybe it's a good idea to say that the government has to
have pretty good/really good/compelling reasons to restrict any liberty
at all (subject to
Title: Message
Prof. Wildenthal writes: "This language does, however, appear to me to wipe out the U.S. military's sodomy prohibition.Or is anyone prepared to argue that servicemembers already sacrificing so much for their country should be denied the right, at least while off-duty in private,
I'm trying to figure out how to descirbe Thomas' statement in the dissent
that there is no general right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution or Bill
of Rights. According to Gerber, First Principles at 58, Thomas testified
that there is a right to privacy in the Fourteenth Amendment. Similarly,
was surprised that Scalia omitted any reference to Graham/Sacramento here.
-Original Message-
From: Mark Tushnet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 11:29 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bowers Overruled
Maybe the strategy of insisting that Lawrence is (really
g.
Marty
- Original Message - From: "Mark Tushnet" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: Bowers Overruled
Maybe the strategy of insisting that Lawrence is (really) a "sort of
fundamental rights" case is mistaken
No.
- Original Message -
From:
David
Bernstein
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 3:12
PM
Subject: Re: Bowers Overruled
So does this mean Marty thinks that Lochner was correctly
decided?In a message dated 6/26/2003 3:01:46 PM Eastern Standard
Iassume that David's remark was meant to be
tongue in cheeck, but it does seem to me that the Court is returning to a
broader approach to substantive due process. Are weentering a new
Lochner era? Justice Kennedy, at least, seems tobe open to the idea
. . .
Rebecca E. ZietlowProfessor of
discretion in economic regulations?
In a message dated 6/26/2003 3:17:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No.
- Original Message -
From: David Bernstein
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: Bowers Overruled
So does this mean Ma
I should add that a forthcoming paper of mine, Lochner Era Revisionism, Revised: Lochner and the Origins of Fundamental Rights Constitutionalism, 82 Geo. LJ. __ (forthcoming 2003, available on SSRN) establishes, to my satisfaction at least, that Meyer and Pierce, cited favorably by Kennedy, were
Title: Message
This language does, however,
appear to me to wipe out the U.S. military's sodomy prohibition.
So
indeed it may. OTOH, Grutter stands, inter alia, for the proposition
that a state actor can have a compelling state interest if it declares that it
has
the decisions of elected officials, juries,
etc.
- Original Message -
From:
Zietlow, Rebecca E.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 3:16
PM
Subject: Re: Bowers Overruled
Iassume that David's remark was meant to be
tongue in cheeck, but it does seem
Well, it seems to me that you can logically believe 1) there is no GENERAL
right of privacy in the Constitution (one that provides blanket protection
to all consensual sexual condcut), but also 2) certain specific aspects of
privacy ARE protected, perhaps because they are fundamental rights or
for
During his confirmation hearings, Thomas indicated there was some kind of
constitutional RIGHT to privacy that could be found in the Fourteenth
Amendment. Is the suggestion here by Ilya that Thomas meant the right to
privacy was totally dependent on the presence of certain other fundamental
19 matches
Mail list logo
