{"id":28,"date":"2003-07-10T17:50:23","date_gmt":"2003-07-10T22:50:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/?p=28"},"modified":"2003-07-10T17:50:23","modified_gmt":"2003-07-10T22:50:23","slug":"liberty","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2003\/07\/10\/liberty.html","title":{"rendered":"Liberty"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here’s an interesting analysis <\/a>of Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas<\/i>, which says Kennedy has turned away from the questionable implied rights argument (e.g., the “right to privacy” that in Griswold v. Connecticut<\/i> formed the foundation for overthrow contraceptive laws, abortion laws, but which faltered in previous gay rights cases), and has instead adopted a much more defensible right to liberty<\/i>. <\/p>\n

Under this argument, government must justify particular laws that restrict liberty (activities which do not violate the rights of others), rather than people having to demonstrate that their particular desired activity is a “fundamental” (if nonspecified) right to balance against the presumption that laws are constitutional.<\/p>\n

In addition \u2014 and as the dissent notices \u2014 now there is no pretense of a “fundamental right” rebutting the “presumption of constitutionality.” If you reread his opinion, you will see that Justice Kennedy never mentions any presumption to be accorded the Texas legislature. More importantly, he never tries to justify the right to same-sex sexuality as fundamental. Instead, he puts all his energy into demonstrating that same-sex sexual freedom is a legitimate aspect of liberty \u2014 unlike, for example, actions that violate the rights of others, which are not liberty but license.
\nWith this as the baseline, the onus then falls on the government to justify the restriction of liberty. Once an action is deemed to be a proper exercise of liberty (as opposed to license), the burden shifts to the government. Though he never acknowledges it, Justice Kennedy here is employing what I have called a “presumption of liberty” that requires the government to justify its restriction on liberty, instead of requiring the citizen to establish that the liberty being exercised is somehow “fundamental.”
\nAll that was offered by the government to justify this statute was the judgment of the legislature that the prohibited conduct is immoral \u2014 which for the majority (including, in this regard, Justice O’Connor) is simply not enough, standing alone, to justify the restriction of liberty. Why not? Because this judgment of immorality means nothing more than that a majority of the legislature disapproves of this conduct, which would be true whenever <\/i>a legislature decides to outlaw something. Such a doctrine would amount to granting an unlimited police power to state legislatures.<\/p>\n

Interesting. And, on the face of it, promising.<\/p>\n

(via Volokh<\/a>)<\/small><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here’s an interesting analysis of Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which says Kennedy has turned away from the questionable implied rights argument (e.g., the “right to privacy”…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_seopress_robots_follow":"","_seopress_robots_imageindex":"","_seopress_robots_snippet":"","_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_robots_breadcrumbs":"","_seopress_robots_freeze_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_custom_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_canonical":"","_seopress_social_fb_title":"","_seopress_social_fb_desc":"","_seopress_social_fb_img":"","_seopress_social_fb_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_height":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_title":"","_seopress_social_twitter_desc":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_height":0,"_seopress_redirections_value":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled_regex":"","_seopress_redirections_logged_status":"","_seopress_redirections_param":"","_seopress_redirections_type":0,"_seopress_analysis_target_kw":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-28","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics-law"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":51511,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2015\/06\/18\/civil-rights-are-shouldnt-be-up-to-the-democratic-process.html","url_meta":{"origin":28,"position":0},"title":"Civil Rights are shouldn't be up to the democratic process","author":"***Dave","date":"Thu 18-Jun-15 2:36pm","format":false,"excerpt":"I mean, yeah, it's nice when civil right recognition happens organically, and people recognize the value of human beings of various types and protect their \"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.\"But people can be balky. Significant portions of the populace can be reluctant to recognize rights that make them\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":51279,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2015\/05\/27\/identity-vs-practice-in-anti-discrimination-laws.html","url_meta":{"origin":28,"position":1},"title":"Identity vs Practice in anti-discrimination laws","author":"***Dave","date":"Wed 27-May-15 5:19pm","format":false,"excerpt":"Bush's argument here is that gays should (grudgingly) not be discriminated against for their identity, but that it is okay to discriminate against their practice (in wanting to be married), both in terms of the law forbidding it or letting folk legally refuse services that are even peripherally related to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":134717,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2017\/09\/16\/cakes-wedding-cakes-special-creative-efforts.html","url_meta":{"origin":28,"position":2},"title":"Cakes, wedding cakes, and special creative efforts","author":"***Dave","date":"Sat 16-Sep-17 4:06pm","format":false,"excerpt":"One of the points I've heard made about the current SCOTUS wedding cake controversy was that this was no ordinary cake that was being requested, just something \"off the shelf,\" but a Personal Creative Effort, something that represented some highly individual personal crafting that, if forced to be created, would\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/wedding%2Bcake%2Blesbians.jpgimgmax%3D660.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/wedding%2Bcake%2Blesbians.jpgimgmax%3D660.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/wedding%2Bcake%2Blesbians.jpgimgmax%3D660.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":20539,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2011\/03\/23\/bryan-fischer-is-a-dolt-constitution-for-me-but-not-for-thee-edition.html","url_meta":{"origin":28,"position":3},"title":"Bryan Fischer is a Dolt (Constitution for Me but Not for Thee Edition)","author":"***Dave","date":"Wed 23-Mar-11 10:22pm","format":false,"excerpt":"Dagnabbit, Bryan -- it would have been nice to have been able to retire the whole BFiaD category, but in your unhinged hatred for the things you hate (for which I at least applaud your unwavering dedication), you keep providing targets that simply cannot be ignored. To wit, your latest\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Dolts"","block_context":{"text":"Dolts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/dolts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/08\/bryanfischer.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":10991,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2007\/05\/01\/law_day.html","url_meta":{"origin":28,"position":4},"title":"Law Day","author":"***Dave","date":"Tue 1-May-07 7:22am","format":false,"excerpt":"I'm sure that plenty of folks will have fun with the Presidential Declaration of 1 May as \"Law Day.\" Our Nation is built upon the rule of law and guided...","rel":"","context":"In "Politics & Law"","block_context":{"text":"Politics & Law","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/politics-law"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":26018,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2012\/02\/04\/rick-santorum-is-a-dolt-special-privileges-for-me-not-for-thee-edition.html","url_meta":{"origin":28,"position":5},"title":"Rick Santorum is a Dolt (Special Privileges for Me, Not for Thee Edition)","author":"***Dave","date":"Sat 4-Feb-12 2:32pm","format":false,"excerpt":"Rick, hi. \u00a0I've been trying to avoid taking you to task for your doltitude for a while now, hoping you'd slip back into your richly deserved obscurity (since it's pretty clear at this point that even the GOP primary voters aren't extreme enough to pick you as their candidate, thank\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Church & State"","block_context":{"text":"Church & State","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/politics-law\/church-state"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/02\/ricksantorum.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}