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

Supreme court cases - Essay ExampleA similar fact to the shew 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 decision and stated that the case does not require a judgment on whether laws against sodomy between accept adults in general, or between homosexuals in particular, are wise or desirable. The issue presented in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental mighty upon homosexuals to exact in sodomy and hence invalidates the laws of the many States that still make such conduct illegal and have done so for a very prospicient 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 prior cases has construed the Constitution to confer a right of priv acy that extends to homosexual sodomy and for all intents and purposes have decided 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. friendship of Sisters (1925), and Meyer v. Nebraska (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 contraceptive method 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 legal action 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 evaluator Blackmun (Bowers v. Hardw ick, 1986) that this case is no more round 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. United States (1967), was about a fundamental right to place interstate bets from a send for booth. Judge Blackmun said that this case is about the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men, namely, the right to be let only Olmstead v. United States (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). It is very sad to know that we based our decisions to the rule of law laid down in ancient 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 intellect 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 important when dec iding the case to pay financial aid 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 people act, think, and decide before and on how they do at this present time. There are acts which were morally wrong before, that maybe right and acceptable today. As for the present case of Susan and Mary, it is