Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: spunkets
I'm reading through the Kennedy opinion now. I'm now at a point where Kennedy is arguing that there wasn't really a long legal history of criminalizing homosexual acts as such. It strikes me as being as bad and tendentious history as Blackmun's pseudohistory in Roe v. Wade. It must be taken right out of the briefs of the lawyers arguing for Lawrence and Garner. Lawyers' history in briefs is notoriously bad.
46 posted on 06/26/2003 8:07:04 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]


To: aristeides
Unfortunately the court can't add to the arguments that were brought before it. It can only choose among them. Sounds like Texas didn't have that great a legal team.
67 posted on 06/26/2003 8:18:59 AM PDT by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

To: aristeides
THat's the way those guys operate. They have visions and whatever they can do to transform reality into those visions, they will do. Hence the long passage through rambling rubbish.
117 posted on 06/26/2003 8:57:19 AM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson