Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
> Brett Robson wrote:
>
>> Which misses the point entirely. It is no business of anyone what
>> people do in prvacy.
>
> I agree completely with that part, but KGII isn't wrong in one sense
> ...
> the reasoning of the decision was strained, at best. The 14th
> amendment
> is getting stretched to fit around this one. The consequences of this
> decision, if faithfully applied as precedent, are far-reaching, and,
> in general, wonderful.

Not wonderful in the slightest. Rather inconsistent of you, BTW. I seem to
recall you writing something a while back about how people should not be
able to possess and distribute their wealth in any way they damn well
please.

> I doubt that the majority of the court really
> wants
> to apply this decision across the board.

The majority tried to say this in their rather strained opinion, but the
dissent called them on it, specifically saying, "Do not believe it".

> It does set a precedent that
> things like adult incest are legal.

I have never understood why people say "adult incest". Is "incest" on its
own understood to refer to children? But yes, it does set that precedent. I
seem to recall a shitstorm coming down on a certain Senator Santorum when he
stated this rather obvious fact.

It seems to me that folks who invoke the "consenting adults in private" flag
are very careful to draw the line of what should be legally permissible
right outside of their own behavior. This was evidenced rather excellently
when the gay activists were saying last month that a decision striking down
sodomy would not threathen incest laws. There was also much false moral
outrage about a comparison between sodomy and incest. Well, why the outrage?
Why were the same people who were rooting for the overturning of sodomy
statutes the same people who were assuring me that incest laws would stay on
the books?

> Drug possession would be difficult
> to uphold as criminal under the logic of the decision.

You think this decision had logic? It overturned the outcome of _Bowers_ but
affirmed its central legal conclusion i.e. there is no fundamental right to
homosexual sodomy. This is evidence by the fact that a rational-basis test
is used rather than the strict scrutiny test that a fundamental right would
call for.

> It basically
> sets
> a precedent that the government can't tell you what to do.

Indeed, possession of anything would be difficult to legislate. This is one
of the nice things about having such matters decided by the legislature
rather than the courts. A state might decide that it wants to permit sodomy
but criminalize bestiality. It gets to be inconsistent. The courts don't
have that luxury. However, I don't think that the precedent you describe has
been set in the slightest.

> In general, the US has been governed on a system that affords very few
> absolute rights, and allows the states free rein to regulate pretty
> much everything else, regardless of motive. There is a "rational
> basis" test,
> but that gets abused to the point of worthlessness. A fairly hilarious
> example of this is the legality of blue laws. Blue laws are still
> considered constitutional here: the government has the right to jail
> you
> for selling goods and services on a Sunday.

I don't know of any blue law jurisdiction where violation is a jailable
offense. Let's be honest, KWW. I also don't know of any blue law
jurisdiction where there is the flat ban on commerce that your statement
suggests. Such laws generally apply to the sale of alcohol in retail
outlets. This was the case in Atlanta when I lived there. In one county,
there was no sale of alcohol on Sunday. However, one could simply cross the
county line to where alcohol was sold on Sunday. (Atlanta covers the
intersection of several counties). Also, the blue laws in that county did
not apply to alcohol served for consumption on a business's presence e.g. a
restaurant that served alcohol.

I would be very curious to know if you could find for me an American
jurisdiction that prohibits commerce of any sort on Sundays upon pain of
imprisonment. You're dangerously close to pulling a Jed.

> Why? Because you have no
> guaranteed right to sell things on a Sunday. The state can not be
> found
> to be infringing on a right you don't have. The rational basis is "The
> state can ensure it's workers take a day off, and Sunday is as good a
> day as any." In McGowan vs. Maryland, only Douglas had the courage to
> state that such laws violate the First Amendmentment, and even he
> discarded the Fourteenth as not guaranteeing this liberty. If this
> court
> can stretch the Fourteenth to cover sodomy, it covered blue laws, drug
> possession, adult incest, bigamy, and all kinds of unwarranted
> intrusions by the state.

I'm sure Justice Williams will tell us when state intrusions are warranted.
He's already told us two: the transfer of wealth and private education.

> It'll be a happy day if people consistently read the 14th to do that.

BWAHAHA!

> I
> don't think they will.

That is because your reading is goofball. What are they teaching you at LLC?

-- 
Kevin Gowen
"When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong
thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day." Dick Gephardt
(D-MO), presidential candidate