Supreme court cases Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Supreme court slicknesss - Essay ExampleA similar fact to the present case can be found in the case of Bowers v. Hardwick (1986). Hardwick was charged violating Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy by committing an act with another male in the bedroom. The court in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) reversed the Court of Appeals ratiocination and express that the case does not require a judgment on whether laws against sodomy between consenting adults in general, or between homosexuals in particular, are wise or desirable. The issue presented in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) is whether the Federal piece of music confers a vestigial accountability upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy and hence invalidates the laws of the many States that still have such conduct illegal and have done so for a very long time. In this case of Bower v. Hardwick (1986), the court declared their disagreement with the Court of Appeals and with respondent that the Courts preceding cases has construed the Constitut ion to confer a right of privacy that extends to homosexual sodomy and for all intents and purposes have heady this case. Bower v. Hardwick (1986) presented the reach of this line of cases was sketched in Carey v. Population Services International (1977). Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), and Meyer v. northeast (1923), were described as dealing with child rearing and education Prince v. Massachusetts (1944), with family relationships Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson (1942), with procreation Loving v. Virginia (1967), with marriage Griswold v. Connecticut, supra, and Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra, with contraception and Roe v. Wade (1973), with abortion. The rulings in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) settled that there is no connection between family, marriage, or procreation on the one hand and homosexual activity on the other has been demonstrated, either by the Court of Appeals or by respondent. However, I dissent in the decision stated above. I agree with Judge Blackmun (Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986) that this case is no more about a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy, as the Court purports to declare, ante, at 191, than Stanley v. Georgia (1969), was about a fundamental right to watch obscene movies, or Katz v. join States (1967), was about a fundamental right to place interstate bets from a telephone booth. Judge Blackmun said that this case is about the most broad of rights and the right most valued by civilized men, namely, the right to be let alone Olmstead v. United States (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). It is very sad to know that we based our decisions to the rule of law put bring in antiquated times. Justice Holmes, believed that it is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past. Thus it is very great when dec iding the case to pay attention to the present condition of the state. We may have laid down rules from the past centuries, but these rules were based on the condition of the state during those times. There are differences on how the lot act, think, and decide before and on how they do at this present time. There are acts which were morally aggrieve before, that maybe right and acceptable today. As for the present case of Susan and Mary, it is