One sentence in O’Connor’s concurrence in Lawrence is particularly interesting:

“As the Court notes… petitioners’ convictions, if upheld, would disqualify them from or restrict their ability to engage in a variety of professions, including medicine, athletic training, and interior design. See, e.g., Tex. Occ. Code Ann. §164.051(a)(2)(B) (2003 Pamphlet) (physician); §451.251 (a)(1) (athletic trainer); §1053.252(2) (interior designer).”

Do you see that? Before Thursday’s decision, gay people in Texas were technically not allowed to be interior designers.

If for no other reason than this, Lawrence was an excellent decision.

For my fellow law-geeks out there: an essay stating that the Court’s equal protection jurisprudence has become a shambles. It was written before the sodomy decision was announced, but it’s still relevant to O’Connor’s concurrence. (Can you say “O’Connor’s concurrence” five times fast?)
—–

Howard Bashman of How Appealing referred to tenterhooks, just like I did last night. Weird…

I still hope nobody retires (even though Lawrence would have turned out the same way even without O’Connor). I don’t think anyone will retire right now; as I’ve read somewhere, “Those who know aren’t talking, and those who are talking don’t know.” The only ones stirring up the rumors of a retirement are politicians who are worried, and journalists who are looking for a good story. Bush is coasting to re-election right now and doesn’t need any controversy stirred up. And all the justices seem to be happy on the Court. Most importantly, there’s a major campaign finance case scheduled for hearings in September, which is unusually early, and it’s doubtful a replacement would be confirmed by then. But we’ll see.

Kennedy wrote the opinion, and it was 6-3! O’Connor concurring, apparently. Wow…
—–