Awesome. “Kansas cannot punish illegal underage sex more severely if it involves homosexual conduct, the state’s highest court ruled unanimously Friday in a case watched by national groups on both sides of the gay rights debate.”

This is particularly poignant. The day after it decided Lawrence v. Texas in June 2003 – when we were all giddy and high on our newfound nationwide freedom – the U.S. Supreme Court, in what seemed to be an afterthought, sent a case back to Kansas in which a teenage boy had received a 17-year jail sentence for underage gay sex with another minor. If it had been heterosexual sex, the guy likely would have gotten probation or, at most, just over a year in jail. The U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back “for further reconsideration in light of Lawrence v. Texas.” In other words: Hint hint. Unfortunately, the Kansas court either didn’t get the hint or blatantly chose to ignore it, because in February 2004, that court upheld the 17-year jail sentence.

Well, finally, justice has been done, because the Kansas Supreme Court has reversed the lower court. Here’s the ruling and here’s a summary.

Took long enough. Justice sometimes does happen, given enough time.

Not only can’t Miers write – she doesn’t even understand the Constitution.

From her response to the Senate questionnaire:

“While I was an at-large member of the Dallas City Council, I dealt with issues that involved constitutional questions. For instance, when addressing a lawsuit under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the council had to be sure to comply with the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause.”

But, from the Washington Post:

“There is no proportional representation requirement in the Equal Protection Clause,” said Cass R. Sunstein, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago. He and several other scholars said it appeared that Miers was confusing proportional representation – which typically deals with ethnic groups having members on elected bodies – with the one-man, one-vote Supreme Court ruling that requires, for example, legislative districts to have equal populations.

I wouldn’t necessarily have caught that distinction myself. But guess what? I haven’t been nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. She has.

Ugh.

Harriet Miers doesn’t know how to use commas. Not even when answering written questions from the United States Senate.

More here and here.

For crying’ out loud already. This is beyond embarrassing. Not only can’t the woman write – she can’t even get people to write properly for her.

Does this woman really belief she’s qualified to sit on the Supreme Court? Honestly? If Bush is too stubborn to withdraw her nomination, she should withdraw it herself.

I’m simply appalled.