|
laurell3 -> RE: Alabama bans sex toys,wtf! (10/7/2007 1:55:53 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: petdave
quote:
ORIGINAL: laurell3
I haven't read it, but the refusal to hear the case probably has nothing to do with it's merits. As cyberdude pointed out it's more likely a procedural declination on whether there is a legitimate constitutional issue.
If you're interested in law, it's worth a read. Here's an older take on it (from 2004)
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20040804.html
My understanding is that Williams (sex shop owner, female, how cool is that?) tried to have the law overturned based on the basis that Lawrence v. Texas set a precedent for a Constitutional right to sexual freedom... Which, IMO, would be a given in a perfect world, buttttt.... Since this law involved the state's right to regulate commerce rather than individual behavior, SCOTUS shot down the appeal.
Ostensibly.
i'm certainly not going to argue that the shift in Court demographics didn't have anything to do with it... ("red state"? Come on, this ain't kindergarden, folks... we can think outside of primary colors here)
Interesting that this may have just been an afterthought in a 14 page (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) law written primarily to shut down strip clubs...
http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1179738967311530.xml&coll=1
Politicians... still illegal to shoot 'em... what's with that? [:-]
Your quote is the federal circuit court's ruling, I was referring to the US Supreme Court's denial of cert. Sexual privacy isn't a fundamental right, there's not a constitutional issue for them to hear. The case has yet to be decided by the highest law in the land, but again they hear cases with extreme facts and this doesn't seem to present those.
l
|
|
|
|
