Randy E. Barnett on Supreme Court & Sodomy on National Review Online writes:
Contrary to what has been reported repeatedly in the press, the Court in Lawrence did not protect a “right of privacy.” Rather, it protected “liberty” — and without showing that the particular liberty in question is somehow fundamental.”
A few days back, I pointed to an article that said that the Court had gone too far because they were overriding a law without referring to specific language in the Constitution. Barnett, on the other hand, says that the Court is actually taking a more straightforward approach to “liberty” and placing more onus on the government to demonstrate that an infringement on liberty is warranted.
I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t really comment sensibly on whether the Court is overstepping its bounds. I am all in favor of the government needing to prove that liberties are only taken away when absolutely necessary.