snowpeach06 wrote:but, I lost a ton of points on stupid stuff like grammar
beach_terror wrote:mythosopher wrote:I never understood why people think so many cases are judicial activism. It's not activism if there is law and legal reasoning to back the holding, even if some of it is more abstract and principles-based. For example, I don't understand how Lawrence v. Texas is activism?
There's no textual support that there's a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sex. The judiciary steps into the legislative area by saying there is, and it's a huge stretch to say that the founders actually intended something so specific to be a fundamental right (plus, where do you draw the line? Brown? Homosexual sex? Abortion? you can't draw a line)
The electoral process is where the Texas statute should have been overruled. The judges aren't accountable to the people, to allow their word to be the last and devoid of any true textual support is a huge usurpation of power from the States.
I agree that there's no explicit text that says "GAY SEX. DO IT." But there was a long history of case law that established privacy in the bedroom between consenting adults. Because the legislature/prosecutor did not provide a compelling state interest to invade on that privacy, the Court determined that it was infringed upon inappropriately. (I'm fairly certain they make all this clear in the opinion if you actually read it.)