[sinkspur]

JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting.

I join JUSTICE SCALIA’s dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today "is . . . uncommonly silly." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a mem-ber of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valu-able law enforcement resources.

[RAT Patrol]

So? It is irrelevant whether he is for or against the state law.

[Polycarp]

Interesting that you pluck Thomas' words from the larger context of Scalia's dissenting opinion. I knew someone would, though for completeness I posted Thomas' remarks anyhow.

You probably saw Thomas' line already posted here today, and since it bolsters your own well known opinion, you pointed it out.

Thats OK, but did you bother to read Scalia's opinion here? How about highlighting something important.

[WOSG]

My duty, rather, is to "decide cases ‘agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.’" Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I "can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy," ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the "liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions," ante, at 1.

Justice Thomas in few words demolishes the whole edifice of Liberal artifice on the matter. A truly great Justice!

[ninenot]

OK, in Thomas' opinion the law is silly. Moses didn't think the law was silly. Seems to me that of the two, you would value Moses' opinion more, given your deacon-ship, Sink.