Dissect this argument for me (re: Scalia's reticence to answer)

[Rex_Goodheart]

Antonin Scalia, by his own logic, had a moral obligation to answer the student who asked him if he sodomized his wife.

Mr. Scalia made it quite clear in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas that the state has a right to violate a person's privacy on moral grounds, that the state has the right to determine what's moral, and that nobody has a constitutional right to privacy. If that's the case, then the legality of the issue follows lockstep with the morality, and Mr. Scalia should have answered the question on moral grounds. That is, since there is no constitutional right to privacy, and because laws are structured to model morality, then there is no moral right to privacy, either.

[adwon]

1. Uh

Not that I agree with that dissent, but that's a pretty distorted view of just what he said in Lawrence.

Aside from that, constitutional rights only apply to state action. They don't apply, except in very narrow circumstances, to private actors.

[tubbacheez]

2. Did the student represent the state in asking the question?

Scalia did not argue that every violation of privacy should be tolerated on moral grounds.

Reading your own description of his argument, he only said that the state had the right to violate someone's privacy if it furthered some "moral" purpose.

Did the student act on behalf of the state? If not, Scalia is safe.

And even if the student really was acting for the state, Scalia wouldn't be compelled to answer. Rather, Scalia's argument only justifies the student (as state's representative) in pressing the violation (say, by hiring an investigator).