How far will high court go in misinterpreting the law?

How far will high court goin misinterpreting the law?
EDITOR:
As I picked up The Vindicator June 26, my heart sank. The headline read: "Ruling ends ban on gay sex." Being a political science major at a local college, and having taken a case study course last year, I had a fairly good idea of just what the court had done. I would like to state, before I begin a letter that I am sure will be offensive to some, that I have, as the dissenting justices in these cases often say, nothing against homosexuals. Indeed my argument is not the moral ramifications of such a runaway justice system but the fact that it is indeed runaway.
The history of the privacy policy is itself evidence that the court has taken the Constitution to mean practically whatever the court, and popular culture, want it to mean. Even if one has never studied law or case history, generally one is aware of the Roe vs. Wade case. In this case from the 1970s, the court created, through its constitutional interpretation, something it called the privacy policy basically allowing women to receive abortions, with certain limitations. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a privacy policy stated. In fact the main justification the court gives for such a policy is the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, which is basically a coverall, stated loosely as the states cannot abridge the rights of citizens without the due process of law. My point is this: In the 1970s, there was a push for women's rights, and the court was not blind to the opinions of popular culture, even if it meant sacrificing valid interpretation of the Constitution.
I am sure that right now many people reading this letter are thinking, "Great, the government needs to stay out of private issues of the home, especially regarding what a person does with his/her body." However, there are things to consider that often do not come immediately to mind. Fifty or 60 years ago, many people would be astounded to find out that popular opinion about homosexuality would turn from that of condemnation to that of not just acceptance, but support. Just as the era 50 or 60 years before the Roe vs. Wade decision would be shocked by the idea that a large and outspoken group of people were fighting for the right of a woman to end the life of her unborn child.
What will people 50 or 60 years from now be in support of? What if pedophilia is the new cause to support? Bestiality? Does a crime become protected by the privacy policy simply because it is in the privacy of one's own home?
These scenarios may seem far-fetched at this moment, but in the Bowers vs. Hardwick opinion, that the court just overturned, the justices were concerned not only with homosexual sex, but also with pedophilia, bestiality and a host of other crimes. That decision was the limit on the privacy policy. What is to be the limit now?
The court has not only invented a policy but now has used it to erase a limit that was set up to protect society. Organizations that support acts of pedophilia already are in existence; let us hope that the mood of pop culture does not shift to their support in the future.
SARA TURNER
Hubbard
An Improvement Act shouldactually improve something
EDITOR:
Contrary to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the administration is now tampering with overtime. Apparently this is just the beginning.
"Pentagon officials have stated that they are pushing a proposed bill, the Civil Service and National Security Personnel Improvement Act, that will take away collective bargaining rights, whistle-blower protections, annual seniority-based pay raises, and rights to appeal disciplinary actions, from the 600,000 employees at the Department of Defense. Other sections of the bill would create a 'pay for performance' system and eliminate a section of the current law that bans nepotism in hiring practices." Labor Notes, June 2003.
Improvement Act?
Let us ever be mindful of the lives, the struggles, the strife that labor endured to get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. And it now appears the administration is attempting to turn back the clock to pre-Depression days.
FRANK D. ANNESS
Youngstown