[sweetliberty]

"Without a compelling interest by the state, personal liberty is sacred and inalienable."

It seems the state has developed a "compelling interest" in increasingly more parts of our personal lives. Seems like there should be a clear definition of what constitutes a compelling interest. Obviously common sense, decency and good judgement are no longer a reliable basis for administering the law.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Morality isn't a compelling interest in denying personal liberty. Morality changes with the wind. Murder is illegal not because it's written on the 10 Commandments, but because it unfairly harms the personal liberty of others. I suppose there are conservatives here at FR who would support state laws ordering obedience to the 10 Commandments and Scalia would mostly sit idly by.

'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

Stub your toe on the ottoman while going to the bathroom at night and the surveillance cameras installed in your home by the state government will pick up the violation and punish you as they see fit.

During oral arguments, Justice Breyer asks if Texas could ban the telling of "really serious lies" at the dinner table, and Harris County, TX DA Rosenthal almost says, "yes." He's interrupted by Scalia who offers a fallacy of logic-- Appeal to Tradition: "Don't you think what laws a state can constitutionally pass has something to do with the sorts of laws that have a long tradition of being passed?" Regardless of whether the Court has chosen this fallacy to rule on cases, should we applaud it?