YESTERDAY THE SUPREME COURT HEARD ARGUMENTS in Lawrence v. Texas, the Texas sodomy case. Not surprisingly, Andrew Sullivan has a lot to say. He also points us to this account of the oral argument, by Dahlia Lithwick. Breyer’s comments are quite amusing.

I’ve written on this before — you can read my column from December here, in which I point out that state supreme courts have been reversing sodomy laws right and left, without significant controversy, under their state constitutions, and suggest that the Supreme Court could learn a lot from those opinions. You might also want to read this amicus brief written by Boston University law professor Randy Barnett and the Institute for Justice, and this law review article that Dave Kopel and I wrote a couple of years ago, which discusses the state sodomy decisions at considerable length.

Me, I’m pro-sodomy. And, in the rather unlikely event that I’m ever before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I’ll dare ’em to make an issue of it.

UPDATE: Eric Muller has a rather Freudian observation regarding a comment of Justice Scalia’s at oral argument yesterday. [That’s twice you’ve referred to “oral” argument in this sodomy case. — Ed. Not you, too! Sheesh! Back to Kausfiles, where you belong.]

ANOTHER UPDATE: Clayton Cramer takes a rather different view of these issues than I do.