Finally something worth arguing...

You make the perfect point for the slippery slope Lawrence has left this area of jurisprudence in but you really don't need this case to even argue this law.

The claim that because you can use sex toys in Alabama equals you should be allowed to buy them is easily reconcilable in the face of other current laws. I can drink my face off in Lake Cumberland, Ky but can't buy a beer within 30 miles of the place. I can blow my hand off with fireworks in Ohio as long as I buy them in another state. I can make a homemade batch of Puma Punch using Everclear in Ohio as long as I buy the Everclear in Kentucky or Indiana.

So why can't a girl get off on a vibrator she had to buy through the mail or in another state?

You're just pissed because you perceive this as the judiciary legislating the morality of its citizens. The last time I checked the citizens of a state still have the right to pass morality based laws.

Anyway, fat chance of the Supreme Court overturning this... of course unless you want to also overturn the above mentioned laws on the books.
assface | Email | Homepage | 02.20.07 - 10:36 am | #

Nice legal argument assface. In each of your examples, there is a legitimate government purpose, controlling drink and fireworks are rationally related to promoting and protecting the health and safety of citizens. What is the legitimate government purpose behind controlling vibrator use? Answer, none. Overturned. Vague notions of morality are not sufficient.
Kop | Email | Homepage | 02.22.07 - 8:27 am | #

I knew, I just knew that that you would come back with the counter that these laws are rationally related to the health and safety of citizens. I would agree on the fireworks, bad example because there is an obvious government safety issue.

However, I disagree on the prohibition of selling alcohol in individual counties. We all know the history of these laws were to appease the religous factions of the counties in question. The purpose and function was to prohibit the sale of alcohol or the "devils drink" thus making the county more righteous. These have survived just like the vibrator law will.

So if someone challenges the Constitutionality will the attorneys defending the prohibition argue the health interest of the state in regards to a legal product which doesn't directly cause diseases costing taxpayers billions i.e. lung cancer?
assface | Email | Homepage | 02.22.07 - 9:48 am | #

I don't understand your last paragraph. Under the strict scrutiny test, the original intent of law matters, but under the rational basis test, the intent does not matter if there exists a rational basis. So, no matter if the alcohol laws were inacted on some unsupportable moral basis, the laws remain rationally related to health and safety issues.

So, again, what is the legitimate government purpose for vibrators?
Kop | Email | Homepage | 02.24.07 - 3:31 pm | #

Remember that Lawrence v. Texas removed morality from the list of permissible "legitimate" state interests.

However, that was O'Connor's baby. She's gone and the opinion is ripe for being limited.

I'm betting this is not reversed -- or even considered by the SCT.
brett | Email | Homepage | 03.10.07 - 9:25 am | #

As a practical matter, Brett is correct because of the recent Bush appointees and their judicial activist agenda. However, as a matter of principal the decision should be overturned.
Kop | Email | Homepage | 03.11.07 - 3:14 pm | #