Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote an opinion declaring that the liberty and privacy rights found within the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution confer upon consenting adults a right to engage in sodomy, and seemingly anything else they so choose, within the privacy of their homes.
"The privacy right created in Lawrence -- "
Our right to privacy is as old as common law & common sense. It was not "created in Lawrence".
-- is based on the most dubious and most criticized doctrine in the Court's jurisprudence
It is "dubious & criticized" by those who want States to have the power to ignore due process, to infringe upon fundamental individual rights.
States have never been granted such powers.
-- a concept known as "Substantive Due Process." The 14th Amendment states:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the Untied States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
A straightforward reading of the constitution would seem that this involves two things: the privileges or immunities of citizens (their substantive rights)
Our rights to life, liberty or property are not substantive/ essential?
and proper process -- a jury of one's peers, appointed defense counsel, the right to confront witnesses, etc.
However, the court has held that Due Process also includes certain substantive rights that are "fundamental to ordered liberty" yet for some inexplicable reason not mentioned in the text of the Constitution.
Odd claim. Does this man really think its "inexplicable " that most of our essential/substantive rights are not mentioned in the Constitution? Has he ever read the 9th Amendment, and understood it's impossible to enumerate all of our rights?
Most prominent of these is the right to privacy ---
Privacy is essential, certainly, but I doubt that the framers gave much thought to specifically enumerating the right to be 'left alone'. --- It's an obvious freedom, and would be akin to enumerating our right to lock our doors.
Statist's here on FR seen to think that any individual liberty not specifically mentioned in our Constitution is fair game for State 'regulations', even for outright prohibitions. -- Some, like paulsen, even believe that States can prohibit our RKBA's.
This is 'conservatism'?