Sandefur is defending himself against Owen Courreges of Southern Appeal on the rude question asked to Scalia, and doing quite well I think. He writes:
Courreges concludes, "stop being a jerk about this and admit that the question was inappropriate." I have admitted the question is inappropriate - that was my entire point. Whether or not I am a jerk is not the issue. The issue is, why is it inappropriate to ask Justice Scalia this question, but okay to drag John Geddes Lawrence in handcuffs to the witness stand to ask him the same question?It is nice to see that Courreges is capable of being appalled. Why is he not appalled by the idea that the state may send armed agents into our bedrooms to ensure that we are having the right kind of sex?
Quite so.
More like this
After reading Randy Barnett's latest post on the ongoing debate between he and Stephen Bainbridge (and by proxy, between Jonathan Rowe, Tim Sandefur, Larry Solum and myse
Timothy Sandefur has posted an excellent essay on libertarian judicial philosophy, as part of an ongoing debate going on between myself, Sandefur, Jonathan Rowe, Randy Barnett and Larry Solum (on the li
FYI and FWIW, Owen no longer blogs at SA. He now blogs at the Lone Star Times. He simply left a comments to a post at SA.
Feddie-
Oops, I didn't realize that. I saw the link to the Lone Star Times, but just assumed he was still blogging with you.
It is extraordinarily difficult to penetrate the deeply embedded hypocrisy of those who profess views of the recklessly righteous. They simply refuse to acknowledge that that concept even exists in relation to them. It is similar to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, where no one in the military would presume to ever question the behavioral choices of those who are "apparently" heterosexual.
Unless I'm missing something, there's a rather significant distinction. Lawrence was observed by a policeman while he was engaged in "the act." It isn't just a question directed to him. So the appropriateness of a question directed to him wasn't really in issue. The question could just as well have been addressed to the policeman.
Um, of course, that doesn't mean that the cops shouldn't have just, you know, averted their eyes. They didn't need to make a federal case of it. On the other hand, maybe it's a good thing that they did.
BTW, there was no 4th amendment (unreasonable search and seizure) issue either, since the police had been directed to their abode by a telephone call that turned out to be a lie. From what I read, the dissembler was convicted of filing a false report.