10 Key Court Decisions That Prevent Right-Wing Christians from Controlling...

[Brewman_Jax]

10 Key Court Decisions That Prevent Right-Wing Christians from Controlling Your Sex Life

http://www.alternet.org/sex-amp-relation...r-sex-life

From the article:

Quote:If the Christian Right had its way, the United States would be a fundamentalist theocracy in which contraception, homosexuality, abortion, sexually explicit hip-hop lyrics and all adult pornography were illegal. But making the U.S. that much of a theocracy would mean overturning a lot of major Supreme Court decisions. Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has had many rulings that helped to advance sexual freedom in the United States—and it will be easier to protect those advances if fewer socially conservative justices of the Antonin Scalia/Clarence Thomas variety are appointed in the future.

Certainly, the Christian Right would have had a better chance of bringing more hardcore social conservatives to the High Court if Republican Mitt Romney had been elected president on November 6, whereas President Barack Obama has shown a tendency to nominate justices who are at least centrist in their judicial philosophy. And now that Obama is getting ready to begin his second term, he will be more likely to appoint justices who will uphold or perhaps even expand Supreme Court decisions that are favorable to gay rights (Lawrence v. Texas), contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird), or one’s right to possess sexually explicit adult erotica (Stanley v. Georgia).

...

An interesting read. Most of these rulings had far reaching effects that I wasn't aware of. Also, I wasn't aware how alarmingly close the rabid neo-con RW is to their wet dream of a conservative Christian-based theocracy. Well, not a true theocracy, but a compliant Supreme Court that would let them have their way and bar everyone else from fair treatment.

[sandnsea]

Sotamayor is clearly not centrist in any way. Elena Kagen is centrist on some business issues, but I can't see where she'd ever go against expanding personal civil rights. It's a good read but I sure don't get where they come up with their view on Obama's appointees. Somebody doesn't have to be throwing red paint on people to have liberal views on the law.