Well, the ACLU has once again shown why liberals simply cannot be taken seriously (in fact should be feared) when it comes to reading and understanding the Supreme Law of the Land. It would seem that the ACLU believes that solicitation and the act of sex in public restroom stalls is a "private" matter to which every man, woman, and child in this great nation are entitled to engage in unfettered by government under our Constitution. Funny, I haven't read the public restroom fornication clause of the Bill of Rights....

ACLU: Sex in Restroom Stalls Is Private - Yahoo! Singapore News

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

It would seem that the Minnesota Supreme Court believes the same. From your article:

And this undercuts my point how? I would be willing to bet that he majority on the Minnesota bench at the time were liberals--hence the reason to fear their jurisprudence.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Yea, while the ACLU's stance seems pretty ridiculous at first, they do seem to have some legal precedence for their position.

In addition to what Jefe pointed out from the article, there is also this:
Sounds like Minnesota has kind of backed itself into a rather embarrassing corner.

I was merely pointing out that it's not just the ACLU supporting this, the Supreme Court supports it as well. Before you go demonizing the ACLU, you might want to read your article a little more carefully.

Have you ever had sex in a public bathroom? I hear it's quite a thrill.

According to the article, "The ACLU filed a brief Tuesday supporting Craig. It cited a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago that found that people who have sex in closed stalls in public restrooms "have a reasonable expectation of privacy."" Therefore, the right to sex in public restrooms does appear to be legally defensible.

No where in the article does the ACLU cite the United States Constitution.

The ruling was made 38 years ago, which would make it in 1970. The justices in Minnesota in 1970 are:

NELSON, MARTIN A. (Justice, 1953-1972)
Republican nominee for Governor of Minnesota 1934

MURPHY, WILLIAM P. (Justice, 1955-1972)
(No information on political orientation)

OTIS, JAMES C. (Justice, 1961-1982)
"Although the senior Otis fancied himself a Republican, he voted along Democratic lines, his son said."

ROGOSHESKE, WALTER F. ( Justice, 1962-1980)
(No information on political orientation)

SHERAN, ROBERT J. (Justice, 1963-1970; Chief Justice, 1973-1981)
"Sheran graduated from the University of Minnesota Law School in 1939 and served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 1947 to 1951 as a conservative from Blue Earth County."
Minnesota Law & Politics :: Minnesota's Legal Hall of Fame

PETERSON, C. DONALD (Justice, 1967-1986)
(Appears to be liberal)

KELLY, FALLON (Justice, 1970-1980)
(No information on political orientation)


source

Those who proliferate and advance ridiculous precedent are as guilty and ridiculous as those who created it.


There is no contradiction, the protection of people's "privacy" is a historically understood and firmly established police power of the state and has NOTHING to do with any Constitutionally based expectation of "privacy". If I look into your mailbox and read your mail, I am not charged with violating your Constitutional rights, I am charged with a crime pursuant to the state's police powers to regulate certain behavoirs.

.

Then what does anyone's expectation of "privacy" have to do with it? The ACLU is arguing (based on the itself false premise that there is a general right to "privacy" in the Bill of Rights) that since there is an expectation of "privacy" in a bathroom stall, then laws banning public sex or the solicitation thereof in a bathroom stall are unconstitutional. That the article does not elaborate on this point doesn't change the fact that this is the legal basis of their arguments.

Typical, you fall back on the utterly meaningless use of party affiliation to ascribe "liberal" or "conservative" in a judges judicial temperment. Well, Judges Souter and Stevens are two of the three most liberal activist judges on the high court today, and they were both Republican appointees.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

"Fall back"? I was merely providing the information for people participating in this thread, along with a link so people could learn more about the Justices should they feel the need. I didn't intend to make any sort of point with the post.

Geez.

Okay...



You're the only one here talking about any sort of "constitutional rights". It seems pretty clear to me, Minnesota made a ruling 38 years ago that would support the ACLU here. Plus, Minnesota clearly states that one has an expectation of privacy in the bathroom. If they didn't intend for the laws to be used in the way they are here, they should've written their laws a bit better.

According to the article, "The ACLU argued that even if Craig was inviting the officer to have sex, his actions wouldn't be illegal." The principle you cite may well be a basis underlying the arguments, but with the precedent cited in the article it is incorporated into Minnesota case law. It is the prior precedent that the ACLU is citing in your article.

In the United States Supreme Court decision of Roe v Wade (1973) , a right to privacy was recognized.

That you think that this right is not Constitutional doesn't change the fact that the United States Supreme Court has recognized it as such.

Well yes, but at the same time, no.

While one has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a bathroom stall, when one engages in conduct in that stall that deliberately attracts the attention of others, it seems to me that the reasonable expectation no longer exists.

For instance, if one were in a bathroom stall with another for the purpose of snorting coke, and said aloud to one's companion "Hey, you gotta do a line - this is some great stuff!", and were overheard by a law enforcement officer, I doubt one could assert their reasonable expectation of privacy.

Or, if one reaches beyond the confines of the stall to contact another for the purpose of soliciting sex.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

This thread is nothing more than a rant, based on a complete misunderstanding of the US legal system. The article linked to completely refutes the OP.

I loved this part
"Those who proliferate and advance ridiculous precedent are as guilty and ridiculous as those who created it."

I'm still not certain the OP wasn't just clever satire....

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Well, given that it was in direct response to my asserted belief that in all likelyhood a majority of them were liberals, it is hardly a great leap on my part.

Again, the context of the point as a RESPONSE to something is everything. You suggested that the fact that Craig was originally charged with interferring with someone's privacy and its view that laws proscribing sex in public bathrooms not being unconstitutional is somehow inconsistent. I pointed out that the there is a fundamental distinction between laws based on historically understood and established police powers of the state and the protections guaranteed by the Constitution. Just because there is a civil "expectation of privacy" which the state may make laws proscribing against the intrusion of does not mean that there is a CONSTITUTIONAL expectation of privacy.

Furthermore, you are just wrong that I am the only one talking about any sort of "constitutional right". That is the ENTIRE basis of the ACLU's position, that there is a CONSTITUITONAL right to "privacy" (which they are wrong about but that is another discussion), and that therefore anytime there is an "expectation of privacy" then the CONSITUTION prohibits laws interfering with it. Why the hell else do you think they keep going on and on about privacy?

First of all, I will repeat my prior point, those who propogate and espouse bad precedent are as guilty and ridiculous as those who created it.

Actually, the right to privacy was created (in one of the most intellectually baseless rulings in the court's history) in Griswold v. Conn., and was specifically tied to the marital relationship.

Anyone who claims that it is a reasonable interpretation that anything in the bill of rights was understood or intended to make ANY sexual activity, let alone homosexual sex in a PUBLIC restroom constitutionally protected as a "private" matter are either willfully ignorent, or intellectually dishonest given that laws proscribing such things were common before, during and after the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

So, you, if the precedent we were discussing were something like, oh let's say "separate but equal", you would love that quote just as much? Right?

Once again liberals treat "precedent" as though it has ANY relevance in a discussion of what PROPER constitutional interpretation is. I understand that as a practical matter of law, the law is whatever the court says it is at any given moment, but that doesn't confer intellectual integrity to the precedent, merely legal weight.

The bottom line is that any interpretation of the Bill of Rights that renders actions that were routinely legislated against by the society that ratified that it is clearly disingenuous.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Are you uncomfortable with sex? Does it make you feel shameful and dirty?

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown