[middie]

This is a non sequitur. How the case arrived at the initial court in Houston doesn't matter. There was an arrest, a report and a charge. Irrespective of whether it was a major crime felony or a minor misdeamenor, it simply doesn't matter. The defendants could not have brought a declaratory judgment action themselves, thus ruling out a non-law enforcement initiation. The police brought the two guys in and booked 'em and the state attorney charged 'em; that's is the necessary predicate for a plea in abatement (no contest with a subsequent appeal).

Test cases are nothing new, they have existed in virtually every area of civil rights doctrine, from integrated lunch counters, Florida beaches off-limits to blacks in the segregation era, to MLK's disobedience to an ostensibly lawful, if clearly unconstitutional court order in Birmingham. So what?

The court had a record before it and four justices chose to take the case either on appeal from the highest court of the state or by certiorari. There was the required ''case or controversy'' that forms the foundation for jurisdiction of any court. Had the state not charged these men there would have been no jurisdictionally mandated ''case or controversy''that was, in the parlance of the courts, ''ripe for adjudication.''

This judge should choose; either be a journalist or a judge. The story may be of interest to some purient minds or some self-righteous fans of FR on the political fringe. But it certainly misses the mark as an important story.

[spookadelic]

Who cares if the cops where set up???
Who cares if the phone call was a set-up???
Who cares if the gay men planned the whole feakin thing???

What does that have to do with whether or not gay sex sould be legal?

[CaptRon]

I'm not sure it would make a difference. The Supreme Court is not a finder of fact. It rules on the law.

[FreedomCalls]

Wow.

[SuziQ]

Not surprising. Sarah Weddington, another Texas lawyer, did a similar thing in Roe-v-Wade. She had 'Jane Roe' claim that she had been raped and wanted an abortion. Norma McCorvey, the real 'Jane Roe' had not been raped, and never wanted an abortion. Weddington, in conjunction with other lawyers, and even a couple of the Supremes, used McCorvey to take the case all the way to the Supreme Court so they could force a change in the law of the land to suit their own personal legal preferences.

[Torie]

SCOTUS knew it was a sham case, just as they knew Griswald was a sham case. Sometimes, SCOTUS doesn't mind. They want to rule. Sometimes, SCOTUS distorts the facts, to make the rule they want. What SCOTUS wants, SCOTUS gets.

[jwalsh07]

What the journalist-turned-prosecutor-turned-judge-turned-journalist found, after interviewing most of the key players, including those in the Texas homosexual subculture that produced the case, is that the Supreme Court, possibly for the first time in history, ruled on a case "with virtually no factual underpinnings."

Hardly. Roe v Wade, Doe v Bolton, Griswold v Ct etc, etc.

In fact SCOTUS jurisprudence from about 1940 to the present is one big bad joke.

[COEXERJ145]

Farah is about 2 years behind the time. It was known when Lawrence v. Texas was being argued that it was a setup all along just like Roe v. Wade.