Bowers V Hardwick Supreme Court Case Essay

In The Gay Marriage Case, Obergefell v Hodges, the United States Supreme Court decided that a state may not prohibit same-sex marriage. Instead, it emphasized that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to the gay society through the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment of the United States of America Constitution. The involved decision maker in the case was Justice Anthony Kennedy, who gave four primary reasons for his decision.

In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults which were acting in privacy. The case attracted much of the public

　　　　There were two Justices, McLean and Curtis, who disagreed. They argued that once the Court determined it had no jurisdiction to hear case, it had to dismiss it, not make a ruling. They also felt there was no Constitutional basis for the claim that blacks could not be citizens. When the Constitution was ratified, black men could vote in five of 13 states. This made them citizens of their states as well as the U.S (The Supreme Court)

In 1971 one of the key cases in United Sates History and also the state of Georgia was Furman v. Georgia. Furman was an African American male that broke in to a home to steal another citizens items. During the robbery the victim woke up and scared Furman. While Furman was fleeing the seen the owner gave him chase, and Furman accidentally drop his handgun and it went off killing the victim. When Furman was arrested he was told that if found guilty, he could be facing the death penalty. Furman appealed the execution to the Supreme Court, and argued that under the 14th amendment he would not be allowed pursuit of happiness, and liberty the American way. The Supreme Court heard his case and overturned the

Vote: 7/2. Justia Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the court. In which Rehnquist, C.J joined and White, Blackmum, O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter Joined. Steven J. filed an opinion in which Marshal J. joined.

One Supreme Court member that stands out from the rest would have to be John Marshall. There is no doubt about this because he made the Supreme Court a co-equal branch of government. This means that it was an equal branch to the legislative and the executive. He became a Supreme Court Justice in 1801 and was appointed by John Adams. While holding his position he set three major goals that set precedents and made him the most significant Supreme Court Justice ever. Marshall strengthened the national government, weakened the state government, and strengthened the conditions for business and stabilized the economy. Before John Marshall was the Supreme Court Justice, there were attempts to balance the Court which had failed. His decisions

A landmark case in United States Law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States,

The Supreme Court Justices agreed on the major premise that, “Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.” Liberty as defined by the court is taken or supposed to be true because it consists of the First Amendment rights of “freedom of thought, belief, expression”,but the court also included “ certain intimate conduct” as a liberty. The court is correct that “certain intimate conduct” is a liberty. Because of the courts major premise the court came to the minor premise that, “It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons.” However, “certain intimate conduct” is a liberty for one to do when it is legal according to the Laws of

The Chief Justice that presided over this case was C.J. Rehnquist, the other presiding Justices were J. O'Connor, J. Stevens, J. Souter, J. Breyer, JJ. Thomas, J. Kennedy, J. Scalia, and JJ. Ginsburg. Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion over the case with Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas filed concurring opinions. Whereas, Justices Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion. Before I go into the opinion that Rehnquist delivered I would like to go in to some of the opinions that the other Justices' had stated as to their dissenting opinions.

On May 23, 1957, Cleveland police officers attempted to search Dollree Mapp’s house under the assumption that she had in her custody a suspected bomber and illegal gambling items. The police were turned away after Mapp requested that they first acquire a search warrant. Three hours later, the police returned to her home and forcibly raided Mapp’s house without a warrant, and found their search to be futile. Instead of the evidence they expected to find, the officers discovered pornographic materials in Mapp’s possession. To own such salacious pictures and books is an encroachment of Ohio’s state code, so Mapp was arrested and convicted for this violation. Dollree Mapp appealed her case to the Ohio Supreme Court on the basis that it was an intrusion on her rights defined in the Fourth Amendment.

The 14th Amendment is more towards supporting Kenndey's view than Scalia. The amendment states, "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" which should not go against gay marriage, but defend it. It claims the law cannot simply take away rights or presume any kind of misjudgement of a person.

Hardwick, decided in 1986. It was overturned in 2003, which upheld 5-4 decisions, it was for the activity of oral and anal sex in private between adults, and it was applied to homosexuals. Lawrence v. Texas was decided in 2003. This was same-sex sexual activity legal, in 13 states and in other parts of the United States. It was 5 justice majorities, which also overturned the same case of Bowers v. Hardwick and did not find a constitutional protection of sexual privacy. DeShaney v. Winnebago Country Department of Social Services, was decided 1989 by the Supreme Court. Which basically held that it has a failure to prevent child abuse by a parent does not violate the child’s right, the liberty of following the 14th amendment. Loving v. Virginia, decided in 1967, and invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage. Two couples were sentenced to jail for a year, because they had married each other, a white man and black women. Their marriage violated the state’s anti-miscegenation, which prohibited people from marrying each other, especially if they were from a different race. The Supreme Court decision was unanimous, which determined that this prohibition was unconstitutional. Therefore, it was an ending all race legal marriage in the United

A Supreme Court case usually have a main argument that decides the ruling. The ruling for Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc. (1991) was five to four (Daniels, Stern). There was mix reactions regarding this case. In Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc. (1991), the main argument to the ruling written by Justice William H. Rehnquist is that nude dancing is considered an action that is expressive but not within the protection of the First Amendment even though technically it is ("Excerpts From Supreme Court Ruling”). Even though that is the main opinion announcement of this case, there are counter opinions that are worth mentioning. One in particular is by Justice Byron R. White where he concluded that the law passed by Indiana was unconstitutional because it

In a time when countless citizens of the United State were homophobic, how were Blackmun and Stevens, both of which were thought to be conservatives, open to the claims of the gay community? My answer to this question before I read a single word assigned, was easy-they must have known someone who was gay. I believe it is simple to be against something that you don’t understand anything about. It is pompous to say that homosexuals are immoral, perverted, disgusting sinners when you have never knowingly interacted with a homosexual. However, becoming acquainted with someone will likely change your mind; especially if it is someone you would consider a friend. Being able to put a face and an emotion to discrimination often times make the discrimination appalling. The Justices involved in this case ruled the way they did individually because of their personal relationships, or lack thereof, with gay people.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Fourth Amendment). The text of the Fourth Amendment does not define exactly what “unreasonable search” is. The framers of the constitution left the words “unreasonable search” open in order for the Supreme Court to interpret. Hence, by looking at