Replies

Brian, you and Scalia are both down-side thinkers, always looking to find the smelly pile when there's a pony around.

I simply do not agree with Scalia's apolcalypticism. Interesting that he's the only one who voiced these dire concerns; even Clarence Thomas qualified his agreement with Scalia's dissent.

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

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

Interesting that he's the only one who voiced these dire concerns

Indeed. Because he's the only clear thinker and real Catholic on the bench. Scalia is right. You, Deacon Sink, are woefully and disappointingly wrong.

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

Just as this one shouldn't have been. Indeed, they already looked at a case just like this a mere 17 years before and ruled opposite on it. Nothing changed in the interim except 17 years of homo-propaganda.

I simply do not agree with Scalia's apolcalypticism.

Apocalypticism? I'd hardly characterize it as such. I think Scalia is being realistic and consistent. If the state has no rational basis to proscribe homosexual sodomy, it is hard to imagine what private behavior it can ban, and meet the Court's standard.

And contrary to how his dissent has been characterized by some here, I see nowhere in it where Justice Scalia says that he favors keeping such a law in place. He merely points out how inconsistent the majority is in their desparate effort to try to find a way to Constitutionally overturn Texas' statute.

I don't think this kind of thing is something that should be a matter for the law, but...I also think that this is something that should be decided by the state legislature, and the people of Texas, just as Justice Thomas said. That doesn't mean I don't find the behavior distasteful or reprehensible; I just think there are other, better ways of discouraging such things (unfortunately, the courts are rapidly dismantling those means).

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.