Sex and the Supreme Court: The True Story of Lawrence v. Texas

Hey, that's interesting; thanks for posting it. I did not know that about O'Connor. I don't always agree with her as a juror, but I think she was the only one who decided the case correctly: on equal protection grounds rather than due process grounds.

I think the Article III standing question is also interesting. Some state courts have not required that people actually get arrested in order to be sufficiently injured by the law so that they can litigate. (I don't understand why it's not considered that by that logic, you have to risk getting arrested and losing the constitutional challenge. How is that very reality not itself an injury that gives you standing???) In Gryczan et al v. Montana, the state tried to argue that the plaintiffs did not have standing because they could not demonstrate an "injury in fact" (i.e., none of the plaintiffs had been arrested), but that argument actually failed. That was as far back ago as 1997.

I think we're very lucky that jurisprudence is changing in such important ways here in the US.