# SCOTUS question **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 29, 2010, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-question/544983 "2010-06-29T21:31:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-question/544983/21 "2010-06-30T17:47:48Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Even something as low-ranked as a New York State county court’s decisions are binding on the town and village justices’ courts within that county. That may well be true for New York – don’t know. But in Virginia, the general district court hears traffic violations and misdemeanors, as well as preliminary and bail hearings for felony matters. Their decisions aren’t binding on any other court. The circuit court hears felony matters, as well as appeals from the general district court, which lie as a matter of right. And when you appeal your general district court verdict to the circuit court, it’s a trial de novo, not simply an argument of error. And the circuit court’s precedents are not binding on the general district courts in its area. So if, for example, a man was accused of misdemeanor mopery, and his defense was that he was blind, and as a matter of law a blind person cannot commit mopery, then the general district court might find that he’s not blind, as a matter of fact, and conclude that the evidence shows he’s guilty. His appeal to the circuit court results in a new trial, with no deference at all given to the results of the previous trial. The circuit court might find that as a matter of fact, he is blind, but conclude as a matter of law that a blind person can commit mopery, and enter a judgment of conviction. But a future defendant accused of mopery and offering a defense of blindness would not be foreclosed from arguing his defense in the very same district court that started our first defendant off. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2010, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-question/544983/22 "2010-06-30T23:59:01Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > as \*Lawrence \* did _Bowers_ I think that this is the best example, because not only did the Court reverse itself in less than 20 years, you had a Justice (O’Connor) that changed her own vote in each case. Strange how with no intervening constitutional amendment, the Court and O’Connor felt that there was now a constitutional right to sodomy. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2010, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-question/544983/23 "2010-07-01T00:55:03Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I think that this is the best example, because not only did the Court reverse itself in less than 20 years, you had a Justice (O’Connor) that changed her own vote in each case. > > Strange how with no intervening constitutional amendment, the Court and O’Connor felt that there was now a constitutional right to sodomy. With all due respect, that last line belongs in Great Debates. The only place I’ve seen anyone claiming that Lawrence established a “constitutional right to sodomy” is in right-wing Christian groups decrying it. Most of the rest of the world is able to glean from the text of the opinion that whatever the bounds of the nebulous “right to poverty” may be, one element of it is the right to autonomy in private personal relationships – that is, it is not the law’s business what you do in private. Justice Kennedy nuanced that to be sure, but that’s a broad-brush summary of it. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2010, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-question/544983/24 "2010-07-01T01:29:32Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > With all due respect, that last line belongs in Great Debates. The only place I’ve seen anyone claiming that Lawrence established a “constitutional right to sodomy” is in right-wing Christian groups decrying it. Most of the rest of the world is able to glean from the text of the opinion that whatever the bounds of the nebulous \*\*“right to poverty” \*\*may be, one element of it is the right to autonomy in private personal relationships – that is, it is not the law’s business what you do in private. Justice Kennedy nuanced that to be sure, but that’s a broad-brush summary of it. I think you mean “right to privacy” there… ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2010, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-question/544983/25 "2010-07-01T01:34:07Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson with pretty similar facts at issue. That was an 1896 decision, reversed in 1954 – 58 years, nearly 3 generations. > [@whole\_bean](#): > > as \*Lawrence \* did _Bowers_ That was much quicker, an 1986 decision reversed (explicitly) in 2003 – 17 years, or just under 1 generation. Generally, reversals happen only decades later. And almost always after changes in the Justices on the Court – I don’t recall any reversals with the same 9 Justices still sitting on the Court. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2010, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-question/544983/26 "2010-07-01T03:52:27Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > I think you mean “right to privacy” there… Um, yeah. **blush** I could be a wiseacre and say the “right to poverty” was established 100 years earlier, in Lochner. 😉 But it was indeed just a Freudian typo of some sort. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2010, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-question/544983/27 "2010-07-01T16:58:54Z")
> [@sweeteviljesus](#): > > This “Yes, it is”, “No, it isn’t” thing seems a little contrary notions I have about the finality of law, but as was pointed out in Parlaiment of Whores, our democracy rests on the decisions of this autocratic institution. Yet things keep getting done. For the most part, this system works. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2010, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-question/544983/28 "2010-07-01T17:12:11Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I think that this is the best example, because not only did the Court reverse itself in less than 20 years, you had a Justice (O’Connor) that changed her own vote in each case. > > Strange how with no intervening constitutional amendment, the Court and O’Connor felt that there was now a constitutional right to sodomy. Have you read the decision? Try it before commenting on it. O’Connor wrote a concurrence in which she specifically said she did not want to overturn _Bowers_ and that she did not think there was a constitutional right to sodomy. She wanted the Texas law struck on equal protection grounds, because it was aimed at a group, homosexuals, not an activity, sodomy. She specifically said a law criminalizing _all_ sodomy, not just that by homosexuals, could be constitutional. It really is beneficial to know what the hell you are talking about when you make comments like this. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2010, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-question/544983/29 "2010-07-01T17:17:23Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Have you read the decision? Try it before commenting on it. > > O’Connor wrote a concurrence in which she specifically said she did not want to overturn _Bowers_ and that she did not think there was a constitutional right to sodomy. She wanted the Texas law struck on equal protection grounds, because it was aimed at a group, homosexuals, not an activity, sodomy. She specifically said a law criminalizing _all_ sodomy, not just that by homosexuals, could be constitutional. > > It really is beneficial to know what the hell you are talking about when you make comments like this. Second. It’s important to note that courts only have to agree on the result, not the reasoning. Some decisions have no majority opinion, which is fun. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2010, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-question/544983/30 "2010-07-02T22:14:32Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > With all due respect, that last line belongs in Great Debates. The only place I’ve seen anyone claiming that Lawrence established a “constitutional right to sodomy” is in right-wing Christian groups decrying it. Most of the rest of the world is able to glean from the text of the opinion that whatever the bounds of the nebulous “right to poverty” may be, one element of it is the right to autonomy in private personal relationships – that is, it is not the law’s business what you do in private. Justice Kennedy nuanced that to be sure, but that’s a broad-brush summary of it. Didn’t see the GQ tag. Apologies. Perhaps when it crops up in the appropriate forum, I can opine further. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-question/544983/31 "2010-07-05T20:09:28Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Didn’t see the GQ tag. Apologies. Perhaps when it crops up in the appropriate forum, I can opine further. So your idea of opining is to make things up about a Supreme Court opinion. I’ll hold that in mind when I read anything you write in the future, and treat it with appropriate credibility. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-question/544983.md?page=1)