Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Quantum Windbag, Sep 29, 2011.
Federal judge warns on gay rights : SCOTUSblog
The case is Lawrence v Texas, not 'Taylor'.
Judge O’Scannlain makes the same mistake many jurists have over the years, not understanding the unique nature of the Lawrence ruling.
The Court ‘declined explicitly to hold that private sexual conduct, including sodomy, is a fundamental right [nor] explicitly to hold that strict scrutiny applies when this right is infringed. Therefore, on this view, these holdings are not law.’
Justice Kennedy brilliantly creates a ruling recognizing a right not necessarily ‘fundamental’ but nonetheless deserving of a heightened level of review. Consequently the designation of ‘fundamental right’ is not necessary when reviewing potential preemption with regard to gender-based cases, such as DADT.
Indeed, the ruling in Lawrence had to be crafted as it was to ensure issues such as adultery or bigamy not be subject to strict scrutiny:
With DATD now dead, Lawrence will provide the framework to move ahead addressing the issue of same-sex marriage:
Link to full text quoted above:
FindLaw's Writ - Grossman: The Consequences of
Was there crack and underage prostitutes involved?
no, but the record for sacks was broken.
is it just me, or does c. clayton make you sleepy, too?
lol ... I like his shorter posts.
My attention span is next to nothing.
Why should anyone believe that you know more about the law than a federal appellate judge?
I didn't read his post or anything but I'm sure this is a solid rebuttal.
I don't need to be a federal appellate judge to know that Dred Scott was a bad decision. His scholarship is good. Feel free to counter with something that is meaningful.
Separate names with a comma.