[Arkinsaw]

The Court decides what is in front of it, nothing more.

Thats easy to say. But the court does use precedent to justify future decisions (when they want these days). Come back in ten years and tell me that this decision has not been cited in rulings all over the place.

If a case to overturn bestiality comes before it, I'd lay a considerable sum that it wouldn't even be accepted.

Well, the court can apparently do whatever it wants without trying to base things in precedent or law unless it just needs to in order to reach a desired conclusion. So you are correct that they could refuse to hear it. But if they DID decide to ever stop being hypocritical and inconsistent then this case would be cause for hysteria.

So, forgive me if I continue to pretend that the court actually behaves in a logical and consistent manner when thinking about the precedent this ruling sets.

Perhaps I should say instead that this decision provides a future cover for other wild social engineering projects by the court if they decide they need some cover.

[B Knotts]

Our legal system is rapidly becoming a Napoleonic system, rather than common law-based, or so it seems to me. Stare decisis is only adhered to when it suits the politicians masquerading as judges and justices.