March 29, 2000
12:07 PM   Subscribe

Damn Supreme Court. Just when you thought this was a free country, now they're telling strippers to keep their G-strings on.
posted by veruca (10 comments total)
"Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, in a separate opinion by Scalia, voted to uphold the law on different grounds, citing 'the traditional power of government to foster good morals ... and the acceptability of the traditional judgment ... that nude public dancing itself is immoral.'"
Who are they to decide that? They're not there to tell us what's immoral. They're there to tell us what's constitutional.

Jeez, that pisses me off. Freedom, my ass. (pun intended)
posted by veruca at 12:08 PM on March 29, 2000

It's funny that all-nude dancing clubs never shut down due to a lack of business. The court seemed to try its hand at legislating decency, but doing that rarely has any impact.

I suppose people will just go home and rent porn instead?
posted by mathowie at 12:57 PM on March 29, 2000

Who are they? In case you wanted to know about the Supreme court justices that are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate,
the Bio's of each Justice is found here.

The thing I hate is when people get their information through one news source, that is bound to be bias. Why not see what the Justice had to say directly? The ruling of the court case that you dislike ERIE v. PAP’S A. M.

And in case you need to touch up on the Constitution of the United States that you know so well, including job descriptions, you can find it
here. I don't remember it saying for a President to have sex in the Oval office with an intern either.

If you want opinions by the court that make you go "Who are they to decide?" start with Roe v. Wade.
posted by brent at 3:26 PM on March 29, 2000

I wonder how many of CNN's readers know what "pasties" are.
posted by lbergstr at 4:01 PM on March 29, 2000

Uh, not being sarcastic at all, what exactly is a pastie?


Anyway, I feel very strongly that the government has no place legislating morality, most people would agree with me I think. Why then, do they continue to do it? Huh? Why? Man!

Also, what sort of constitutional importance did this particular case have? I know that it's an expression issue, but I wonder what other interesting cases they passed over to select this one. Seems a bit provocative anyway. I guess if you get a bunch of men at a table, they are going to either talk about a strip club, or go to one.
posted by Dean_Paxton at 7:37 PM on March 29, 2000

Pasties are, like, er....they're these little discs that go over nipples. And often they have tassles that you can wave around and around and well anyway how do they stay on? Adhesive?
posted by lbergstr at 7:42 AM on March 30, 2000

Got pasties?
Held on with latex. Unless they're Cornish Pasties, which are made for eating. There's double entendre in here, but I'll leave that to Not My Real Uncle.
posted by plinth at 8:40 AM on March 30, 2000

Everything that is moral is not legal, all that is legal is not moral.

The one power that the judiciary has that the executive and legislative branches don't have is the ability to interpret how they see fit, based upon ther own moral compass, or lack of one.

Congress can try to put into law what they feel to be a moral standard, but because so many people disagree, that will not happen in most cases.

The courts, on the other hand, are a smaller group making decisions and are able to insert their own beliefs for immediate effect, outside the approval of any citizen's influence.
posted by rich at 11:32 AM on March 30, 2000

I am so amazed that "" is actually a domain name. Then again, it doesn't come anywhere near (and, no gang, don't surf this at work).
posted by jason at 10:10 PM on March 30, 2000

Thanks, I always wondered what those things were called... small world. Hahaha!
posted by Dean_Paxton at 12:02 AM on April 2, 2000

« Older   |   jon kats on "geek profiling": Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments