Replies

I have to disagree with those characterizing this ruling as judicial activism. While it's true that each state has the right to define its own laws within its borders, this is not absolute. No state can enact and enforce a law that violates an individual's civil rights. No one today except the most anachronistic among us would argue that miscegenation laws are supportable and constitutional. Those laws were rooted in animosity towards a certain behavior despised by a majority. Likewise with this Texas law.

It is the legitimate duty of the USSC to examine the justness of state laws when they come before it and weigh the constitutionality of those laws. The court rightly saw that the Texas law was an unjustified and unconstitutional invasion of an individual's liberty. The state could show no compelling reason why it's interests should override those of the individual.

The opinion given by Kennedy was very sound and well reasoned. And despite the outcome of this case and its cultural implications, the opinion was quite an eloquent affirmation of the principles most conservatives stand for - limiting the power of government.

And despite the constant stream of apocalyptic rhetoric I expect to see all through the day, as I look out my window at this moment, the sun does indeed continue to rise.