[jwalsh07]

I disagree. They were about completely different issues.

You can disagree all you want but Lawrence v Texas agrees with me. Bowers was rendered inoperative by Romer, stare decisis be damned.

[republicofdavis]

"You can disagree all you want"

Thank you, I will. Bowers was about a fundamental right to homosexual sodomy. Romer had nothing to do with that. It It was a wrong decision but it did not overrule Bowers. The Lawrence decision differed from Bowers only based on a change in personnel. They did not need Romer to overrule Bowers. They just had to want to do it.

I'm sure they cited Romer because that's what they do. But that doesn't support your original point that Romer de facto overruled Bowers.