[The Old Hoosier]

The Court can certainly decide for the gay couple without invoking a "privacy right" and opening the door to other sexually deviant behaviors, like incest, etc., because laws prohibiting these other acts are not in question.

It's called "precedent." The next case before the court will be decided based on this one. If they use logic, they could use Lawrence, depending on how it is decided, to strike down laws against everything from private drug use to bestiality.

This is what Sink and many others have not grasped here yet: If the Supreme Court makes a constitutional ruling striking a law, it is NOT the same as a repeal of that law. A repeal, in addition to being a democratic process, applies only to THAT PARTICULAR LAW. A SCOTUS ruling, on the other hand, is an ABSOLUTE, UNIVERSAL ruling that will have much broader implications.

[The Old Hoosier]

Sorry, forgot to ping, see previous post.

[Luis Gonzalez]

If a "right" is not detailed in the constitution, does that right exist?

[sinkspur]

It's called "precedent."

If precedent prevails, why did the SC take this case in the first place? It already had a ruling based on a non-existent privacy right, even though Georgia has a right to privacy in its Constitution.

Does the SC typically take a case just to reaffirm a precedent, or wouldn't the precedent be affirmed simply by refusing to take the case?

I've read here that they took this case specifically because the Texas statute excludes heterosexuals.

BTW, this has been a good discussion.

[RAT Patrol]

do not let the Supreme Court take away the people's right to self-rule. What is it about this that libertarians don't get? They interpret freedom as meaning "freedom from laws." HELLO? That isn't it at all.