As the vast majority of you probably know, today the US Supreme Court overturned Texas' anti-sodomy law. You can go read the opinions and dissents here.
I just want to note one thing right now, and that's a zinger from Justice Scalia in his dissent. Here it is:
- I do not myself believe in rigid adherence to stare decisis in constitutional cases; but I do believe that we should be consistent rather than manipulative in invoking the doctrine. Today's opinions in support of reversal do not bother to distinguish--or indeed, even bother to mention--the paean to stare decisis coauthored by three Members of today's majority in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. There, when stare decisis meant preservation of judicially invented abortion rights, the widespread criticism of Roe was strong reason to reaffirm it. ... Today, however, the widespread opposition to Bowers, a decision resolving an issue as "intensely divisive" as the issue in Roe, is offered as a reason in favor of overruling it.
(Thanks to Ramesh Ponnuru's emailer for pointing this out.)