today a class of mine, supreme court roleplaying, will sit en banc at our state supreme court. we’re doing a simulation of the u.s. supreme court but, you know, they don’t let you use their stuff as much.
so i’ll be in a robe in about twenty minutes, yelling at faux-ignorant faux texans. the primary case i’m interested in—although it’s a bang-up term for the 21st century, y’all, from cross-burning to whether Nike can lie in ads to 3-strikes-you’re-out—is Lawrence v. Texas.
i’ll write more later, but here’s the gist: Texas has anti-sodomy laws that just apply to homosexuals. but gorjus! you gasp. how can that be legal? well, babies, we hope it’s not. me-as-justice ginsburg will say it’s not, but i hope the real-life supremes (not diana ross et al.) grow up and take a look at our society.
I have to note the hypocrisy demonstrated by the Right on this issue:
In the Florida recount debacle, they argues that the Supreme Court had to rule the way it did b/c Gore wanted to have a selective recount among counties, and that the law couldn’t only be applied to some but not others.
Flash forward to the anti-sodomy case now before the Supremes. Now many of the same people are arguing that Texas’ anti-sodomy laws should be applied to some (homosexuals), but not all (straight couples).
that’s absolutely it, kfb. it’s a shocking bit of bullshit fluff from the right; still, they claim it’s a “moral” prohibition, and that texas has the right to ban things they find “immoral;” i.e., a classic states’ rights argument.
i do hope it will fail, but we won’t know for a few weeks yet.