« “I asked for a car, I got a computer. How’s that for being born under a bad sign?” | Main | Oh, hypocrisy, how many ways do I love thee… »

A Full Slate

slate.jpgIt was a busy weekend for the crew over at Slate, with four Supreme Court-related posts going up on Friday and Saturday. One article takes a look at the now-five-year-old Lawrence v. Texas decision, which was where the Supremes struck down the Texas anti-sodomy law. The authors try to figure out what the legacy of Lawrence is, deciding that, among other things, it didn’t cause “the collapse of sexual-conduct laws but instead a modernization of their justification” and that it “helped make the country more gay-tolerant.” Both of which sound like pretty good legacies to me.

Meanwhile, another article compares the swinging ways of O’Connor and Kennedy, while the annual Breakfast Table has started its rundown and overview of the Supremes’ most recent term and the last week of the term is upon us.

Lastly, the always wonderful Dahlia Lithwick gives us a user guide for the Supreme Court in light of the upcoming election. Litchiwck notes that McCain “apparently wishes to appoint legal eunuchs” while “Obama evidently wants someone capable of channeling Ashlee Simpson,” explaining that issues like abortion and proper rights are only “half the story.” The bigger issue is this: “As you contemplate what you want your next Supreme Court to look like, ask yourself what happens when judges are sidelined—or when they’re chosen for their inclination to sideline themselves.”