Emotional, controversial, moral, and societal (and a bit of sex, too)
Such are the issues covered in chapter 4: privacy, contraception, abortion, sodomy, and a bit of death penalty, too.
The chapter starts with a discussion on the right for privacy and how this played a crucial role in a case against a Connecticut law that prohibited the sale and use of contraceptives. The role of privacy as shown in this chapter is important because it is the common thread that extends the contraceptives case and runs through cases against abortion (somewhat) and sodomy.
A slight extension to the initial contraceptives suit regarding married couples is contraceptives for unmarried couples. It is interesting to read how quickly laws have been changing according to the evolution of the culture and civilization. But it is exactly this that Levin is criticising.
Roe v. Wade the landmark case regarding abortion forms the centre-piece of this chapter, but unfortunately not much detail is given about this case. I would like to know how precisely the privacy / contraceptives case was extended and used in Roe. Could anyone please explain this?
Then it is a hop to the strange law in Texas that forbid sodomy. (Could someone please explain how only Texas had that law?)
Looking back, now it seems understandable that we had such laws against usage of contraceptives including different laws for unmarried and married couples, and sexual acts of intercourse. But it also seems natural that those laws got overturned as culture evolved. Yes? Does anyone still feel that sale and usage of contraceptives should be controlled? Similarly, does anyone feel that sodomy should be prohibited?
What I am wondering is: change across decades and centuries of time is inevitable; therefore, laws governing these "changing things" are also inevitable; so the purpose of this book should be to argue and discuss the correct process for bringing about these changes - instead of deploring the changes themselves.
It is partly true that it is this process that Levin is after, but as I read the book it strikes me that Levin is driven more by the effects of changes - and he allows these effects to filter his view on the process.
Now please let me know what you think. Don't be shy.
The chapter starts with a discussion on the right for privacy and how this played a crucial role in a case against a Connecticut law that prohibited the sale and use of contraceptives. The role of privacy as shown in this chapter is important because it is the common thread that extends the contraceptives case and runs through cases against abortion (somewhat) and sodomy.
A slight extension to the initial contraceptives suit regarding married couples is contraceptives for unmarried couples. It is interesting to read how quickly laws have been changing according to the evolution of the culture and civilization. But it is exactly this that Levin is criticising.
Roe v. Wade the landmark case regarding abortion forms the centre-piece of this chapter, but unfortunately not much detail is given about this case. I would like to know how precisely the privacy / contraceptives case was extended and used in Roe. Could anyone please explain this?
Then it is a hop to the strange law in Texas that forbid sodomy. (Could someone please explain how only Texas had that law?)
Looking back, now it seems understandable that we had such laws against usage of contraceptives including different laws for unmarried and married couples, and sexual acts of intercourse. But it also seems natural that those laws got overturned as culture evolved. Yes? Does anyone still feel that sale and usage of contraceptives should be controlled? Similarly, does anyone feel that sodomy should be prohibited?
What I am wondering is: change across decades and centuries of time is inevitable; therefore, laws governing these "changing things" are also inevitable; so the purpose of this book should be to argue and discuss the correct process for bringing about these changes - instead of deploring the changes themselves.
It is partly true that it is this process that Levin is after, but as I read the book it strikes me that Levin is driven more by the effects of changes - and he allows these effects to filter his view on the process.
Now please let me know what you think. Don't be shy.
posted by George | 11:14 PM
7 Comments:
George, honey, have you been paying any attention to what is being said on here and in the book, or are you so busy looking for instances of Levin's political leanings that you miss the big picture? No one, I repeat, no one is criticizing the evolution of law as culture changes. You can't fault Levin too seriously for displaying that he believes some laws are more destructive to our moral fabric as a society than others (we all hear vague rumblings from your direction on occasion that certain laws on the books are morally reprehensible, too).
The question we (and Levin) are trying to address is whether we maintain control over the process for changing the laws or whether we cede that responsibility to judges.
I'm cogitating a post about why this debate occurs largely along a left/right divide. It seems a little counterintuitive at first, you'd think everyone would be more concerned about preventing judges from usurping that responsibility. But that's for another post. Hopefully I can get to that this week.
Nice jab, punk! :-)
Well, I have an excuse: it was late and my thoughts did not translate well into words.
Kevin, actually, I think it is just a matter of dirty, raw politics - not a matter of the left and right division.
When a party does not like a suit's outcome, it cries foul and blames it on someone / something. But when the outcome is okay everything is just fine by them.
Hmmm, I agree that much of the general right population is just as happy as liberals when judges do unconstitutional legislating from the bench in their favor. However, I believe that if we look closely at the historical evidence we will find that the "politically conservative" judges have been more likely to rule against something they stood for on a personal level because they believed it was unconstitutional. Also, the judiciary as a whole tends to lean left and there's a reason for that as well.
I don't have my case completely ready to present yet and it's not looking very good for the rest of this week, but if you keep your eyes open in other reading you do, I think you might see that what I'm saying is true. I know there are instances of "conservative" judges who have legislated from the bench but I'd be interested if people uncover examples of "liberal" judges who exercised restraint (especially in more recent history).
lol... Bree, I've lived in the South long enough that I can't help calling people "honey" who look as lost and confused as George did in that post. It's soul...
I think that conservative (unfortunate that they must be labeled ) judges just tend to use more of an orginalist way of thinking. Whereas, liberal judges tend to be more relativistic in their thinking, so they see the Constitution as evolving and dependent on the current culture. The next big culture change could cause a more victorian and prudish way of thinking, or be even more relativistic (of course, if that happens our country will collapse). So we cannot allow current "cultural norms" determine the way the Constitution is read. Dictators do that, free societies do not.
FYI Norma McCorvey (Roe) eventually came to Christ and wrote a book Won by Love in which she says she lied in the original affidavit that sparked Roe v. Wade.
Take a squint at this article.
"Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies," Brown said. "The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible."
Jason, I'm sure you'll be happy to hear that Brown is referred to as a judicial intellectual mold of Justice Scalia. I think once the Democrats quit filibustering we should have a new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court... Although, I guess Brown is maybe not quite old enough but it'd be a bright day for the Federal Appeals court anyhow.
Post a Comment
<< Home