Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!sri-spam!nike!cit-vax!amdahl!bnrmtv!timlee
From: timlee@bnrmtv.UUCP (Timothy Lee)
Newsgroups: net.legal,net.singles,net.social,net.women,net.motss
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Ruling on Sodomy
Message-ID: <602@bnrmtv.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 5-Aug-86 20:06:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: bnrmtv.602
Posted: Tue Aug  5 20:06:42 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 7-Aug-86 06:05:41 EDT
References: <3098@jhunix.UUCP> <14682@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <2146@hammer.UUCP> <3282@jhunix.UUCP> <3631@hplabsb.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Bell Northern Research, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 21
Xref: watmath net.legal:4512 net.singles:15158 net.social:1297 net.women:11906 net.motss:3646

> In article <3282@jhunix.UUCP>, ins_aprm@jhunix.UUCP (Paul R Markowitz) writes:
> > In article <12507@amdcad.UUCP> linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) writes:
> ...
> > The charges against
> > them involving sodomy were DROPPED before they ever got to the police
> > station.... They took the case to court anyway.  The basis for the swing
> > vote on the Supreme Court (I don't remember which judge) was that the 
> > law has never been and will never be prosecuted.
> 
> Thank you, now I understand.  Because the law was not prosecuted the 
> S.C. says it is NOT unconstitutional.  If the law had been prosecuted
> then the law WOULD have been unconstitutional.  Makes perfect sense,
> thanks for clearing it up.

Actually the swing justice (I think it was the Chief Justice, but not sure)
said that the court can only rule on the constitutionality if there was
actually a case where the law was used to prosecute.  Since no prosecution
came from this, the justice ruled that it wasn't the court's business at this
time (maybe later... when a sodomy case was actually prosecuted).  Still
sounds fuzzy, though.  The other 8 justices, of course, treated it like a
regular case.