The first two blanks are Bowers and the third Harwick. This was the ultimate conclusion of Mr. Justice Kennedy's cloying Lawrence v. Texas opinion, known best in the unfortunate language of "the sodomy case."

To his credit, he went to great lengths immediately before to distinguish his reversal of Bowers as "incorrect when decided" with his determination not to overrule Roe v. Wade for the same reason:

In Casey we noted that when a Court is asked to overrule a precedent recognizing a constitutional liberty interest, individual or societal reliance on the existence of that liberty cautions with particular strength against reversing course. 505 U. S., at 855-856; see also id., at 844 ("Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt"). The holding in Bowers, however, has not induced detrimental reliance comparable to some instances where recognized individual rights are involved. Indeed, there has been no individual or societal reliance on Bowers of the sort that could counsel against overturning its holding once there are compelling reasons to do so.

But still. Kennedy is the new favorite "swing vote" on the Court among people who demanded written affidavits signed in blood from Mr. Justice Alito that he'd never reverse a precedent he thought was wrongly decided. To no one's surprise, this wasn't based on general principles, but outcomes.

For his part, the pattern of Kennedy's thought seems less based on substantive outcomes than the fact he likes settling things forever by fiat. With Bowers in force, you could still pass laws; now you can't. With Roe in force, you can't pass laws, so we'll uphold that, lest the unwashed do something unfortunate. See also the recent capital punishmnent cases.