Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!Nick wrote: I can imagine that Ramesh's blood boils whenever someone mentions a "right to privacy" but it's here, and it's working on your side in this case Ramesh. If only you weren't so bent on being idelogocially in favor of sodomy laws you might recognize how your argument is a detriment to your overall cause.A quick Google search comes up with this from Ramesh Ponnuru on Lawrence v. Texas (emphasis added): Most states have dropped their laws against sodomy, as they should have ...I should add that a lot of people, including me, think it would be quite constitutional for a state to outlaw heterosexual sex. Nick cites Griswald v. Connecticut as evidence that heterosexual sex is constitutionally protected, but one must distinguish between constitutional law and case law. Case law are subject to change all the time and one does not have to agree with all of it in making legal arguments. For example, if this were several years ago, I would assume that Nick would not agree with the contemporary case law on sodomy, so I don't see why Nick thinks Ponnuru must agree with Griswald v. Connecticut. But most importantly, I would ask Nick to consider that just because someone writes for a conservative magazine does not mean that he automatically holds zealously all the opinions usually associated with his side. |
Comments:
Post a Comment
