Like many states, Texas has sodomy laws on the books that everyone assumed were toothless relics from another era. That is until the dumbass D.A. in Harris County used it to convict two men who were screwing in a private bedroom. Now the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to take the case. The most interesting thing will be to see which two or three Supreme Court justices will be the idiots who vote to uphold the conviction. http://www.newsday.com/news/politic...,7547329.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines
Slate's take on the case: http://slate.msn.com/id/2080693/ I don't think the law stands a chance of survival. Save for Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist, I think the remainder of the Court is pretty embarrassed about the ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick, the predecessor to the Lawrence case.
About friggin' time, damnit! The only thing that's more embarrassing than having a sodomy law on the books nowadays is the enforcement of said laws.
Hmmmm...how can i make everyone here mad....ah yes! "I refuse to endorse sexual deviance, and i sincerely hope the USSC holds up this conviction." Thank you, I'm here all week.
By taking this case, the supremes must be up to something. I'd guess that they're about to turn the "emanations" of privacy in the constitution into secretions and protuberances. As far as history goes, I seem to remember a slur by Octavian on Marc Anthony about taking it in the hershey hiway, to get his troops up for the big sea battle. Those Kansas City ************s have had it rough for a long time. Here in San Francisco, they have it a little easier. Even the football team has a preoccupation on wide receivers.
Do not be sooooo certain that the US Supreme Court will overturn Bowers. 1) Facts drive a case. 2) The way the law in Texas is written will control more than anything else. 3) The court could find against the way the statute is written, but make a specific finding that no constitutional right to this or that exists. 4) The court ruling could be limited in scope. 5) The court is ALWAYS aware what pandora's boxes it may open or close. It will be reluctant to make a ruling that has any far reaching consequences. When dealing with the supremes, never count your chickens...
I know nothing about this present case, but it is very unlikely that Bowers v. Hardwick will be overturned. Why? The Court almost never, ever reverses itself.
Well, I could be wrong in my opinion that the law doesn't stand a chance. I thought that the Court wouldn't support random student drug testing in the Earls case, but I was wrong on that account.
But you have to factor in how many Justices, 30 years from now, want to be judged by history as mental ass-queens.
I think there's a good chance they'll overturn for a few reasons. 1) Sodomy is such an ill defined term. No one's quite sure what's included. See the slate article for this. 2) The original decision was based largely on historical analysis that was just plain wrong. The historical brief written by George Chauncey lays out how anti-sodomy laws actually functioned historically, and in reconsidering a decision whose logic rests largely in historical analysis of sodomy laws, the court may give this brief a good deal of weight. (btw, Chauncey's Gay New York is one of the best history books written in the last 10 years. Regardless of how you feel about homosexuality, it's a remarkable work of historical reconstruction and makes a very interesting case that absolutist notions of gay and straight are very recent, as in the last 60 years, constructions). 3) The justices are embarassed by the original reasoning in Bowers. Powell repudiated his affirmation after the fact. Many legal scholars have called it the worst decision in the past 20 years of the SC. Why would they grant cert if there wasn't a good chance of overturning?
These are all reasons why they may render it toothless (as opposed to overturning it). I know its just semantics, but Bowers will likely be good law after the Court considers this. Why? They rarely overturn. Semantics, I know.
What do you mean by "sexual deviance?" Should the US Supreme Court rule that, under the US Constitution, states may criminalize any form of sexual contact that cannot result in conception? If so, why?
Sex with 14 year olds can lead to conception. Guess that would be OK? Or at least not sexually deviant.