Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (July 2, 1986)
Page 2/The Battalion/Wednesday, July 2, 1986 Opinion Patrolling the sheets The Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling Monday supporting a Georgia statute that prohibits sodomy between consenting adults not only makes homosexual activity illegal in many parts of the country, it puts states’ rights ahead of personal privacy for heterosexuals as well. Justice Byron R. White, writing for the majority, declared that “to claim that a right to engage in such (homosexual) con duct is deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition or im plicit in the concept of ordered liberty is, at best, facetious.” White also pointed out that such behavior was prohibited in the original 13 states when the Bill of Rights was instigated. But many liberties were abridged in the early days of the United States. White’s argument also could be used to justify slavery and deny women the right to vote. The Supreme Court’s ruling, though targeted for homosex ual acts, pertains to all acts of sodomy — homosexual and het erosexual — and applies to the 24 states and District of Colum bia which still have sodomy laws on the books. The Georgia statute, which the court defended with a constitutional shield, defines sodomy as “any sexual act involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another.” The ruling gives states the power to legislate sexual morality and conduct in even the most private locations. Closer to home, it grants constitutional protection to Texas’ anti-sodomy law, which specifically prohibits homosexual sodomy between con senting adults but places no restrictions on heterosexuals. White attempted to justify the court’s decision by saying that protecting homosexual sodomy on the basis of privacy would mean condoning sexual crimes and incest on the same principle. Granting privacy rights to consenting adults is one thing. Protecting non-consenting people from sexual crimes is an other. Now, of course, homosexual and many heterosexual rela tions are sexual crimes in nearly half the states. The Supreme Court, by protecting an archaic and backward law, has taken away the individual’s right to decide proper sex ual conduct and given it to the state. Consistent enforcement of such laws is unlikely and in most cases ridiculous, but what a convenient loophole it creates for the persecution and prosecution of homosexuals. The Battalion Editorial Board New judges don’t fit liberals’ fascist mold Mark Ude There has been an uproar by the political left over the latest recom mendation to the Supreme Court by President Rea gan. Antonin Sca- lia has been pro- posed for appointment as an associate jus tice, to replace • the spot vacated by Associate Justice William Rehnquist, who has been nomi nated for chief justice. The uproar is over the little problem that these and other appointees are not as liberal as Democrats would like them to be. In fact, the almost 300 judges that have been appointed by Reagan since he entered office are conservative in their political and moral beliefs. This admin istration also will get to fill an estimated 60 future vacancies in federal courts. Left-wingers who have enjoyed a lib eral Supreme Court for years assume that such a court is the normal way of life. They think that the new Reagan ap pointees permanantly will swing the court into upholding a distorted and twisted view of the United States Consti tution. Feeling threatened, liberals have voiced their objection to the administra- The Battalion (USPS 045 360) Member of Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Conference The Battalion Editorial Board Michelle Powe, Editor Loren Steff'y, Opinion Page Editor Scott Sutherland, City Editor Kay Maliett, News Editor Ken Sury, Sports Editor Editorial Policy The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspa per operated as a community service to Texas A&M and Rrvan-College Station. Opinions expressed in The Battalion are those of the Editorial Board or the author, and do not necessarily rep resent the opinions of Texas A&M administrators, faculty or the Board of Regents. The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper for students in reporting, editing and photography classes within the Department of Journalism. The Battalion is published Monday through Friday during Texas A&M regular semesters, except for holiday and examination periods. Mail subscriptions are S 16.75 per semester. $33.25 per school year and $35 per full year. Advertising rates furnished on request. Our address: The Battalion. 216 Reed McDonald Building, Texas A&M L'niversitv. College Station, TX 77843. Second class postage paid at College Station, TX 77843. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Battal ion. 216 Reed McDonald. Texas A&M L'niversitv, College Station TX 77843. I-£ r5 op iru o o Uiit court 'Pha't no C&C’t of 5odom<-^ deserves Consi ttutfona [ JDroiecti'o ry . A c is of ) dt O c.(^ i Liooje.\ja c'j cewiCiiyy pro^ec^eJ inal!triable, rlakts Buckley’s cause tainted by Sobran’s anti-Semitic pen Richard Cohen lion’s most recent choice, predicting that with legislative confirmation this summer, the governmental body which usually has the last word will destroy all the gains made in enlightening society. This “destruction” primarily includes criminals being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, as many should be, perhaps leading to the presently low crime rate which now exists in this coun try. This policy is not supported by this administration alone. The majority of Americans have taken a get-tough atti tude toward crime, which shows in the popularity of Dirty Harry movies. It also manifests itself in Cobra, in which the good but never really understood cop defends democracy in the urban enviro- ment. Other aspects of this liberal-feared “destruction” include the favoring of the right to life instead of abortion and the fight for reversal of affirmative ac tion, which leads to cases of reverse dis crimination. It even involves the latest case, which upheld the constitutionality of the Georgia sodomy statutes, outlaw ing homosexual sodomy between con senting adults. Although Reagan has made the ulti mate decisions regarding judicial ap pointments, U.S. Attorney General Ed win Meese III has done a good share of the research looking for administration candidates. Unfortunately, the political left disagrees with the beliefs of Meese, too — beliefs such as supporting heavily pressed police departments in combat ting crime and putting the rights of vic tims over those of criminals. Meese en countered criticism by those who think that he is close to having himself ap pointed as an associate justice in the Su preme Court. Those who disagree with the beliefs of the judicial appointees resort to petty criticisms. These are nothing more than mere attempts to throw mud on the crediblity of the nomination. Overall, when a judge is recom mended to a seat in a federal court, a politics-versus-qualifications fight is born. This fight is characterized by the political party opposing the current ad ministration and feeling obligated not to observe the legal skills or ability of the candidate. Instead, they are compelled to make the nominee look like a fascist who threatens our American way of life. Mark Ude is a senior geography major and a columnist for The Battalion. A few thoughts, as Wil liam F. Buckley Jr. would say, about anti-Semi tes and whether his fellow Na tional Review edi- tor, the syndi cated columnist Joseph Sobran, is one. Buckley, in an extroardinary move, has disassociated himself in the National Review from Sobran’s writings but not — note — from Sobran himself. He remains one of the Review’s three senior editors. What Buckley does is important. As the founding editor of the nation’s most influential conservative journal and as both the friend and ideological mentor of President Reagan, Buckley is a figure conservatives look to for cues. Anti- Semitism is infecting attitudes toward the Middle East, and Buckley is in a p< • sition to say what is and what is not per mitted — what is legitimate criticism (Is raeli policy, thejewish lobby) and what is based on prejudice. Unfortunately, when it comes to So bran, Buckley’s definition of what con stitutes anti-Semitism is flabby. Among other things, Sobran has written that the New York Times endorsed the air strike against Libya only because it served its Zionist editorial line. He also wrote, in Buckley’s words, “that the visit of the pope to a (Rome) synagogue had the effect of muting historical persecu tion of Christians byjews.” (That’s right — Christians by Jews.) And finally, So bran wrote a paean to a little-known magazine called Instauration. He called it “often brilliant,” but B’nai Brith’s Anti-Defamation League had a differ ent assessment of it: “anti-Semitic” and racist. Buckley appreciates that Sobran has offended and he finds some of his writ ings inexplicable. He concedes a reader “might reasonably conclude” that So bran is “inclined to anti-Semitism,” but he assures us that the truth is otherwise. The thrust of his argument is that So bran is insensitive, a klutz with the pen, and the consequences have been poten tially damaging. Sobran has insulted Jews — “the natural allies” of the con servative movement. Thus Sobran is ac cused of endangering the Great Conser vative Coalition. He is welcome to stay, but only if he keeps his mouth shut. Buckley is right that Jews sometimes see anti-Semitism where it isn’t and as cribe it to those who, for whatever rea son, are critical of Israel. But he begs the question in Sobran’s case. The man cannot be separated from his writing. If, after a thousand years of Christian per secution of Jews and the direct papal role in establishing the ghettos of Italy (the word originated in Venice), he can instead see Jewish persecution of Chris tians, then he is dealing from an anti-Se mitic deck. Similarly, any reader of Sobran’s col umn praising instauration would have to conclude that an animus towards Jews and other minorities is what com pels him to stand things on their head. The magazine publishes cartoon stereo types of blacks (“Willie”), Jews (“Mar vin”) and Hispanics (“Pancho”) and ref ers to the Holocaust as the “Holohoax” (“one gigantic hebe soap opera”). Ini September 19H5 edition, InstaunB returned Sobran’s praise. It entitled« article “The Brave Pen of |osephS( bran,” hailing him for his defense of* hite racial pride and solidarity.” Understandably, Buckley shies fre disassociating himself entirely from It friend and colleague. His is a paini; task. But one can fairly ask how the) Sobran-Bill Buckley relationship is, essence, different than the one Jes Jackson had with the Rev. Louis Faral han. Jackson initially went the Budb route and disassociated himself hot Farrakhan’s statements. Finally, wk others pointed out that those statemeffi reflected the man, he severedllt relationship entirely. Buckley and the other editorsoflk National Review, though, have refuse to drop the other shoe. Buckley rejets particular Sobran writings but embrace the whole man. But anti-Semitism a be deduced from the way a person cor ducts himself. In Sobran’s case, them duct in question is his writings, ait; those put his anti-Semitism b doubt. But rather than disassociate h* self from the man, Bucklay raps knuckles and issues a warning. We hen nothing from Sobran himself. As Buckley notes, American conscf vatism has come a long way since it wi polluted by anti-Semitism — and so* of the credit is his. But the contimid presence of Sobran on the mastheadol America’s most influential conservatiit magazine is a step backward. Sobrani no martyr to the hair-trigger sensithi ties of Jews, but a victim of his own pot son pen. Reconsider, Bill Buckley, k fore Sobran’s ink stains your own cause Copyright 1986, Washington Post WritersGwj picKwnosr twh w Hum offtan. pkua or Te *ru.> NfcSfkM,... L - ' *; *• *;* ♦, B. w Hnfm CAftUtfS He By Leavir is hard 1 1600 ini tending ’ tional St ment ma Tina student ; port gro commun Studer countries clubs ha’ particula says. She sa port systi A&I By ( The Tex; Team (TA1 volunteer medical ass nizauon ac University t TAMLC Hutchenrid team provi attention ft bonfire, s events and The group A&M ambu All stude health cent( ambulance needed, fr< cal hospital Nathan ! STUD Comn throut from \ forma A&M timate SAILI more i BRAZ Thurs ter. Bt SAILI Somet Sunda Items ion, 2 desire