Impeach the 'Sodomy 6'

[RedSox02]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33447

This an editorial from the editor of WorldNetDaily. Apparently he believes that the Supreme Court has gone too far this time!!! Overturning the Texas Sodomy Law is grounds for impeaching the six justices! We need more Scalia's running the court!!!!!!!

If you ask me I would have impeached five of them after the 2000 election decision, but apparently that was fine. But oh how dare they pass a ruling which forbids people to be arrested for consensual acts inside their home!!!

I like to consider myself a reasonable person who will reasonably agree to disagree with some people, but I am at my wits end with these morons.

[EOTE]

1. Right to practice sodomy?

Where the hell does this idiot get off thinking that the constitution needs to spell out each and every one of our freedoms individually? Where in the constitution does it say we have the right to eat seedless oranges? Where in the constitution does it say we have the right to bungie jump? The constitution says that we must afford man the right to life liberty and property. There must be a valid reason to remove a liberty, what the supreme court did was take away restrictions on that liberty. Nowhere in the constitution does it give the right for people to be assholes, yet that didn't stop this guy.

[tarheel]

9. Actually, I believe

the constitution states that any rights not specifically enumerated to the federal government in the constitution are reserved to "the people". Not in those exact words but close anyway. So, I believe you would well within your constitutional rights to practice this type of consentual adult intimacy.

[bowens43]

12. More importantly the Ninth Amendment states:

'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people'

It amazes me to see so many 'conservatives' arguing vehemently AGAINST a right to privacy and in favor of fewer personal freedoms.

[JNelson6563]

2. Hilarious!

"Sodomy Six!" That's rich!

Julie

[Robb]

3. To funny

And me without a "spewing coffee in laughter" emoticon... :)

[BOSSHOG]

4. Serious Question

Conservatives have whined that the texas sodomy law was not about sex but about "privacy." They equated homosexual activity with bestiality because "it" can be done in private. Pardon me for trying to anaylyze these morons but what about heterosexual activity? Are the proponents of the sodomy laws all for heterosexual "privacy" but not for any one else? And are they saying that heterosexuals only have happy face missionary sex between married couples? If so, they have solidified their hold on the moron title. I'm confident I know their motives, just want to piss of my fellow DUers on a Monday morning. Ask your happy face heterosexual conservative coworkers what they do in the privacy of their own bedroom - missionary only? Saturday night only?

[meegbear]

7. I hear yah ...

I have some straight friends, male and female, who could make some pronstars embarrased with some of the things they've supposedly done.

This should be an issue in '04? "Senator, why are you more concerned with man on dog sex than you are about Medicare?"

[rock]

5. Yep, with a moran for pResident

the other morans come out of the woodwork

[Vladimir]

6. priorities, where are you

Job losses, rising inflation, soldiers dying in the colonies, the budget in deficit, and the conservatives worry about...
...
...
... the fact that Americans can legaly take it up the arse. Honestly, the infantility of it all... :eyes:

[RedSox02]

8. Dear Mr. Farah,

Your right! The Supreme Court has gone too far. Next thing you know, they will be saying there is a Constitutional right to sex with a woman during her menstrual period, which is clearly forbidden in Leveticus 15:19-24. I am sure the Liberals will say "but it is in the privacy of their own home!!!" Those jerks!

Where is the Supreme Court when your eally need them! I am trying to pass a law banning the eating of Shellfish, which is clearly immoral as stated in Leveticus 11:10. I know we can count on Scalia to back us up on that one!

Leveticus 25:44 clearly states we can own slaves, but those Liberals!!! Ahh don't get me started, they took that right away from us! But now they want to give the "right" to Sodomy!!!! Good Lord Jesus please forgive us!

[EOTE]

13. Lol!

Leviticus has always been my favorite. I'm lobbying congress to make the following things illegal...

1. Clothing made from more than one cloth. Repent you poly/cotton heathens!!!

2. Shaving one's facial hair.

3. Unruly children.

It's been a while since I've read Leviticus, but I believe the punishment for these three crimes is being stoned to death. Of course, as those liberals will point out; 'The times, they are a changin'.' We could perhaps lessen the penalties for first time offenders, perhaps 25 to life. But if there are any clean shaven, poly/cotton wearing unruly children out there, I'm sure we can agree that they deserve the chair.

[RedSox02]

14. LOL!

Show me where in the Constitution there is a right to wear Poly/Cotton clothing!!! There is none. Yet those Liberals will act like it is some kind of right!!! No wonder God hates this country.

[bowens43]

10. As we all remember ,

these same freeper types were thanking god for the supreme court justices when they handed the presidency to the idiot instead of requiring that the votes be counted.

They crack me up, anytime they don't agree with a decision they want to impeach. What a bunch of 'morans'.

[DrGonzoLives]

11. Yeah, conservatives hate "judicial activism"

unless it works to uphold their own believes.

[Cheswick2.0]

15. what do these people have against blow jobs anyway?

Do they even know what sodomy is or do they think it is all about gay male sex?

[TreasonousBastard]

16. There are people who read this shit...

and believe it.

The "slippery slope" argument is a fundamentally flawed one, although it is a very handy rhetorical trick.

Those outraged at the decision, included the esteemed Scalia, are terrified that it will lead to these terrible things the author alludes to:

assisted suicide-- not a privacy issue, and will stand or fall on its own merits.

polygamy-- also not a privacy issue, and has been outlawed for other reasons of overall societal interest. And, so what if polygamy is ever allowed? It would take a long time for it to take significant hold here anyway, as most of us Westerners couldn't handle it. Even Arab men generally don't want more than one wife, and most women are not too interested in sharing.

consensual incest-- same here. It's largely a medical issue.

group sex-- well, what's wrong with that? It doesn't seem to be outlawed in most places anyway.

bestiality-- yet another non-privacy issue. Although most people find it repugnant, aside from animal cruelty issues I'm not sure why the law would want to get involved at all on either side.

homosexual marriage-- another non-privacy issue, and one which has its own arguments.

homosexual adoption-- isn't this already happening? I hear it's been quite successful where it's been allowed.

In his zeal he has forgotten that masturbation, adultery, potsmoking, porn, and other horrors are about to be unleashed on society by this ruling according to some Jeremiahs.

Could this truly be the end of Western civilization?