SCOTUS was supposed to hand down its decision on the case of the gay men prosecuted for sodomy in Texas, Lawrence [and Garner] v Texas, during June. Its normal announcement-of-decision days are Mondays, and yesterday was the last Monday in June. Does anyone know if there has been any announcement regarding this case, and if so, what it was? The press has been remarkably silent, and a Google search turned up nothing new.
If it’d happened, we’d’ve heard about it. Along with Gratz and Grutter, it was the big case this spring.
It’s not out yet, but it’ll be all over the news services the moment the decision is announced. If you look at last year’s opinions list, you’ll see that they released opinions on both Mondays and Thursdays for the last couple weeks of June, plus a couple more on the last Friday.
Fear not, Justice Scalia is poisoning his pen even as we speak.
Last year’s opinions list, since I accidentally gave you this year’s list instead.
Any predictions, anyone, on what’ll happen, and the results on the populace at large either way?
The Forces of Darkness control all the levers of government, the Supremes no longer need to maintain even the posture of even-handedness or rationality. Since one of the participants in this unholy and unatural act was black, they will rule it illegal on the grounds of miscegnation.
(Of course, I’m kidding. I hope.)
There was an IMHO thread a few months ago on how it would come down, who’d write the majority opinion, and who’d dissent. I don’t think it dealt with public reaction. And my apologies, but I’m not going to trouble the hamsters to find it. I remember that minty green and I both posted to it, among others, and I think Dewey did as well.
I expect the same 6-3 split as in Romer v. Evans, with perhaps a concurring opinion from a couple of the majority justices backing away from the Due Process holding of Bowers v. Hardwick. Scalia’s venom will most certainly flow, whether in dissent or (god forbid) concurrence.
I very much hope there is a clear majority opinion. They’ve had too many split rationales in recent years, leaving some rather important issues open for further litigation.
I think 5-4 against Lawrence. I don’t see them broading the definition of the 14th Amendment that much this term. Of course, this may be O’Connor’s last MAJOR case and she is difficult to peg.
I still think 5-4 upholding Bowers.
Old thread: Supreme Court hears challenge to Texas Sodomy Ban. Might be fun to look back and reminisce on our speculation after this sucker comes out tomorrow.
CNN is reporting the decision is out, and that from what I can glean they took the substantive due process route rather than the equal protection route in striking down the Texas law (ha ha minty, you were wrong).
Anyone know where to get a copy of the opinion?
It’ll be posted here in a few hours. Until then, we’re stuck with second-hand news accounts. I’d be quite surprised if they reversed on substantive due process, so I’m guessing that might just be reporters thinking of this as reversing Bowers. We shall see.
Gosh, this one almost makes up for Bush v. Gore. 
– U.S. Supreme Court overturns Texas sodomy law that prohibited consensual sex by same-sex partners.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/index.html
Win one for the good gays, er “guys”. 
Here’s the early description from the Associated Press:
Were Bush and Gore convicted of sodomizing each other?
Yep, a 6-3 split, predictably with Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas dissenting against the right to privacy. I LOVE this quote from Scalia:
Why, I’m sure some of Scalia’s best friends are gay.
Putz.
Anyhoo, well done, Supremes!
OK, minty, who do you have in the 6:40 at Belmont on Friday?
The CNN report on TV said that the ruling appeared to invalidate all sodomy laws, not just gay-specific sodomy laws and quoted some very due-processy language. It certainly didn’t sound very equal protection like.
Nice! I claim the SDMB Psychics award for identifying not only the vote but who’d write the majority and the dissent. I am surprised but pleased that they bought the entire argument, not just the equal protection portion that would have invalidated the Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas laws.
To judge from some of the past debates on this board, they were certainly accused (here) of the attempt!
Congratulations to all you folks who are affected by this!
Yes, it does indeed look like substantive due process, with Bowers expressly overruled by the 5-judge majority. A wonderful outcome, IMO, much cleaner than an equal protection opinion would have been.