THE SUPREME COURT MUST NOW RESIGN

If they agree with Sen Santorum's echo of legal arguments in the case that is. Maybe they should even be arrested by the FBI after their decision for commiting a federal hate crime. After all, they would be using their official position to deprive a minority of their long-established "civil right to sodomy." Just a thought from the radical leftist birdie on my shoulder. I think he got the idea from this article:

the state of Texas is making the same argument Santorum made in his remarks to the AP.

Lorence asked: "If the Supreme Court agrees with the state of Texas in Lawrence v. Texas, does that mean the majority of Supreme Court justices should step down?

"They are trying to demonize one side of a major court decision," Lorence said of the opposition.

"I can't think of a time that that's ever happened before," he said.

. . .Legal counsel from both sides essentially were asked by justices: If we find a right to engage in private, consensual sodomy, are we also creating a right to bigamy?

"This is mainstream stuff," said Lorence, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund in Scottsdale, Ariz. "This is part of the debate on this case."

In fact, the lead attorney for Lawrence, Paul M. Smith, admitted to the court that "by recognizing the right of all adult couples to make choices" about sexual behavior in their own homes, the court "is going to open up a whole can of worms … ."

Now you can see how wacked out the seething Democrats are on this. It's not just the judges who raise Santorum's slippery slope either. The pro-sodomy defense lawyer in the case even agrees with Santorum!

. . .The transcript shows Supreme Court justices took seriously the argument that overturning the sodomy law could threaten the constitutionality of other laws that govern behavior.

One justice, noting that society always has made moral judgments in its laws, asked Smith, "Why is this different from bigamy?"

Later, Smith was asked whether he thought adultery laws were unconstitutional.

His answer indicated a willingness to concede that recognizing a constitutional right for same-sex couples to engage in sodomy will "open up a can of worms."

Smith said, " … as for adultery and all of the other parade of horribles which people have raised in their briefs, it seems to me you've got to look at the individual interests and the State interests, and they're dramatically different in all of those cases, incest, prostitution, all of these – bestiality, all of these things, either there's very little individual interests or there's very heightened State interest or both, in all of those cases, so the idea that by recognizing the right of all adult couples to make choices like this in their own home, the Court is going to open up a whole can of worms, I submit, is correct."

Nice try Dems. Didn't you guys learn from Florida that attempts to infuence and demonize judges and courts will backfire? You guys should know better than to use Santorum for political cover.