Feddie has a rejoinder to my response to his criticism of my argument about “his” Judge Manion. How much longer such a game of blog-minton can go on, I don’t know, but I’ll stop it on my end with this reply.
First, Feddie elaborates on his objection to the “tenor” of my critique of Manion’s opinion, but all he calls attention to is some fairly direct language on my part about the qualities of Manion’s argument–nothing ad hominem, which is more than I can say about Feddie’s treatment of me, alas. (What do they teach in law schools these days?)
Second, he continues to insist that because Muth was a habeas case, I misrepresented its meaning. If Feddie wants to pretend that Muth did not actually decide anything about the merits of the question whether Lawrence renders incest prohibitions unconstitutional, he is free to live in that alternate universe. What he quotes from Manion’s opinion proves nothing whatever on his side of that issue. Interested readers may see for themselves by downloading the opinion here (PDF file). I will simply stand by my previous, quite unrefuted arguments.