Goddamnit, I want to read the opinion, and I want to read it NOW!!! :mad: On what theory they decided the case is going to be crucial here.
One good preliminary thing is the fact that there was only one concurrence, which means that there was a solid majority and the rationale of the decision (whatever it is) will be binding.
Sua
You might want to dredge up your old thread about the Nike case, Sua. The Supremes apparently reversed that California court on that one today too.
wow… I really can’t believe it. I never expected the conservative rehnquist court to uphold affirmative action and privacy rights for gays. I’m amazed.
Yeah, it’s been quite the surprising week up there, hasn’t it?
Woohoo!
OK, southern queer community, on 3.
1… 2… 3…
YEEEEEEE-HAAAW!! Good job, SCOTUS, good job.
LC
Interesting that both the Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas opinions were written by Justice Kennedy. He seems to be the one moving the Court on gay rights issues.
Whee! One of the underpinning laws keeping the necrophiliacs down has been removed! Time to crack open a cold one!
Enjoy,
Steven
Note: This is a sarcastic post about the inane, but apparently legally “correct”, idea that protecting consensual, adult, homosexual activities “logically extend[s]” to protecting necrophilia.
You happen to recall what my position was on that, and whether I won or not? Whatever it was, I’m sure it was heart-felt and impassioned. 
Sua
Funny and nauseating at the same time. I’ll be laughing while I hurl.
Lawrence v. Texas (.pdf)
Happy reading!
Found the Nike thread, minty. FTR, my position then was an impassioned “undecided.” After I read the SCOTUS decision, I’ll probably start a new thread, and link the old ones to it.
Sua
Excellent, thanks for the links.
Sua
Somehow, I doubt it.
But he’s right: this opinion DOES take sides in a culture war, in a way I’m not sure is the most solid of reasoning (equal protection would have been a far stronger ground here: due process rationale is far more sweeping, but its one of those vague penumbry rights that could be used for anything, good or bad)
I predicted this waaay before minty did. I even predicted Scalia’s angry dissent from the bench. The only thing I got wrong was that I figured O’Connor would write the majority opinion. From reports it sounds like she wrote a concurring opinion agreeing with the majority but for different reasons. I’ll be really interested to read her opinion here and see how it’s changed from her joining the majority in Bowers.
Otto, from what I understand of the opinions, Kennedy’s comes down to Due Process, while O’Connor takes it on Equal Protection. I think it’s important to note that, because O’Connor is concurring but not reversing her Bowers ideology. The Georgia statute in the 86 decision outlawed sodomy for everyone… the TX one just for gays.
Yes, the majority appears to stick strictly to due process and overruling Bowers, while O’Connor declines to revisit Bowers and instead would invalidate down the Texas statute on equal protection grounds. Interestingly, O’Connor does not appear to buy the argument advanced by the petitioners that the statute is a gender-based classification that requires intermediate scrutiny. Instead, as with Romer v. Evans, she would apply only low-level, rational-basis scrutiny to the statute, but knock it down anyway because “Moral disapproval of this group, like a bare desire to harm the group,is an interest that is insufficient to satisfy rational basis review under the Equal Protection Clause.”
On to Scalia’s dissent. That ought to be amusing.
I found Thomas’ dissent interesting
In other words, it’s a stupid law but stupid laws can be allowed by the Constitution.
I just read the opinion; NWR’s correct: the majority overrules Bowers outright on substantive due process grounds, while O’Conner rested her opinion on equal protection (and would have kept Bowers as good law).
Here is the key passage from the majority opinion:
I read this as creating a SDP right to any private sexual conduct, so long as:
It doesn’t involve kids;
It doesn’t involve coercion or lack of consent, or situations where consent would be suspect;
It does not include public conduct or prostitution;
It does not require the formal recognition of a particular relationship.
Which, it appears to me, realizes some of the fears of those who opposed this ruling. It certainly appears that adult incest and adultery are now constitutionally protected, and there appears to be a possibility that prostitution not involving “public conduct” might well also be protected (depending on how literally you take that “or”).
To be perfectly fair, what Scalia actually wrote was this: “Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means.”
Just quoting him as “adding ‘I have nothing against homosexuals’” is almost criminally misleading. The AP should be ashamed.
Thomas’ dissent pretty much reflects my position.