Responding to my post below regarding the Supreme Court’s Friday order vacating a Kansas criminal conviction apparently on equal protection grounds, reader Dafydd ab Hugh criticizes my distinction between the Court’s asserted due process reasoning in Lawrence and the Court’s apparent extension of the reasoning to equal protection challenges like the one in Limon regarding the Kansas statute.
Among other points, Mr. ab Hugh criticizes the distinction here as “inside baseball” — a kind of formalistic quibbling. To get a preview of the potential importance of the Court’s extension of its reasoning in Lawrence, consider Nathaniel Stewart’s column on the issues raised by Canada’s legalization of same-sex marriage: “Oh Canada, we stand on guard for thee.”
-
-
Most Read on Power Line
Donate to PL
-
Our Favorites
- American Greatness
- American Mind
- American Story
- American Thinker
- Aspen beat
- Babylon Bee
- Belmont Club
- Churchill Project
- Claremont Institute
- Daily Torch
- Federalist
- Gatestone Institute
- Hollywood in Toto
- Hoover Institution
- Hot Air
- Hugh Hewitt
- InstaPundit
- Jewish World Review
- Law & Liberty
- Legal Insurrection
- Liberty Daily
- Lileks
- Lucianne
- Michael Ramirez Cartoons
- Michelle Malkin
- Pipeline
- RealClearPolitics
- Ricochet
- Steyn Online
- Tim Blair
Media
Subscribe to Power Line by Email
Temporarily disabled
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.