Evaluation of Scalia's Dissent on Lawrence V. Texas

In the Tinker vs. Des Moines court case the judges decided for Tinker even though both arguments from the lawyers where not well made. The judge’s decision was made by who they thought they should go for even though both sides had bad arguments and made a bigger deal of this case than what it should really be.

Against this factors are; Chief Justice John Roberts emphasize on the SSM as being a democratic disrespect, judicial putsch by associate justice Antonin, inextricably linked by justice Samuel Alito and many other factors. Thus, it is essential to consider the actual changes in the opinion count resulting from a decision and the political backlash to adequately determine the relationship between the Supreme Court’s decision and the public

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

Stare Desis is Latin for “Standing by decided matter.” According to the Legal Dictionary, the doctrine of stare decisis also known as the precedent law, began in 12th century England, when King Henry II established the common law. According to stare decisis the decisions of a higher court, such as an appellate court, or Supreme Court become obligatory stare decisis, on lower courts which means that whatever the higher courts say is usually what the lower courts have to follow. It is a rare thing for the Supreme Court to overturn one of its own decisions that has been held as binding precedent. In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court made a landmark decision in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, when it looked at the case that allowed racial segregation in public facilities. This decision held stare decisis for nearly 60 years, until the case of Brown v. Board of Education was heard in 1953. Brown v. Board of Education was a case that took place 1951. In the case thirteen parents filed a civil law suit in U.S. District Court in Topeka, Kansas, regarding their 20 children. The plaintiffs, which is the parents of the children, demanded that the school district take away its policy of racial segregation that was set by the landmark case Plessy v. Ferguson which stated that the children would have separate facilities but would still be equal (which they never really were). After a long and unsuccessful road with the lower courts, the case was taken to the U.S.

First, the majority opinion by justice Fortas in Tinker v. Des Moines uses a lot of precedents. Precedent arguments make his argument more convincing because precedents are thing that have been proven to be justice in the similar situation. It is reasonable for the court to follow these precedents. For example, justice Fortas states that the student in public school may not be compelled to salute the flag by using in West Virginia v. Barmette. This case states that students are entitled by the First Amendment. And a piece of speaking through Mr. Justice Jackson is even quoted. Especially contradicted to the dissent in this case, much more precedent used successfully to improve the reasonableness of the majority opinion.

When Roe v. Wade reached the Supreme Court, it received great interest from all over the country. On December 13, 1971 the case was first argued in front of the judges, but on this day only seven judges were present. The seven judges present decided that this case was so important that the case needed to be reargued when the two new judges were present in the Court. On October 10, 1972 the lawyers repeated their arguments to all 9 of the Supreme Court judges and on January 22, 1973 the decision was made (Brannen and Hanes, 2001).

During the supreme court case U.S v. Lopez, the United States Federal Government’s argument was that carrying a firearm inside an educational environment would lead to a violent crime. A violent crime ultimately affects the population of a school. Due to this, the federal government believed that the commerce clause should be practiced in this case. The Supreme Court backed the previous decision offered by the Five Court of Appeals. In United States v. Lopez, the U.S Supreme Court stated that Congress actually has the ability to make laws under the Clause, but these powers were limited and could not affect the Lopez case.

One of the top most controversial cases Thomas was an Associate Justice for was Miller v. Alabama, which occurred from March 20, 2012 to June 25, 2012. The Court held that mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole are unconstitutional for juvenile offenders. It was said these juvenile offenders could not receive cruel and unusual punishment, which is under the Eight Amendment. It was decided 4:5 vote, which immediately Thomas wrote a dissenting statement. Justice Thomas argues these lines of precedent do not resemble the original understanding of the Eight Amendment. He concludes The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause does not contain the principle, and does not authorize courts to invalidate any punishment they deem “disproportionate to the severity of the crime or to a particular class of offenders. Thomas does not argue to overturn the precedents, but rather for a future reference look at the Eighth Amendment in its original understanding.

Not overruling and thus strengthening previous rules, promotes certainty, predictability and consistency. As stated in Lawrence v. Texas overruling can bring upon an unjustifiable result under principles of Stare Decisis and seriously weaken the court's capacity to exercise the judicial power and to function as the supreme court of a nation dedicated to the rule of law (Lawrence).

This paper will dive in and analyze the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case, Texas v. Johnson, and the still active controversy among the public concerning what circumstances state governments and the federal government have the right to constitutionally prohibit the burning or other form of desecration to the American Flag. Under its decision in Texas v. Johnson the later ruling in the case of United States v. Eichman, in 1990, the Supreme Court had ruled that government can not bring criminal prosecutions against those whom burn or desecrate the American flag so long as they are engaged in expressions of political views without abridging the right of free speech guaranteed under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution at the time. These rulings have sparked public controversy over whether the Court has gone beyond its correct constitutional role and multiple proposed constitutional amendments to overturn the Court 's decisions which have failed to pass due to lack of majority.

Society was impacted in a great effect, this was one of the first victories for people of the (then) small group of LGBT, a group that was still not quite as influential as it is today. I believe the court’s ruling was not trying to stir the LGBT movement forward in any sort of specific way, but instead were trying to push for equality in justice, and having specific groups of people (Gay, lesbian, black, hispanic and so forth) is at the end of the day, an injustice to the people of the United States. There was severe involvement by civil liberties groups, as many saw that this court case would set a precedence in many state laws and some groups were concerned with the aftermath of the case. Kelly Shackleford, a Texas attorney, was affiliated with a Fundamentalist Christian group “Focus on the Family” and he argued for the group that Lawrence V. Texas would be used as a trump card for homosexual equality, an “atomic bomb that they could carry around to attack any law that does not treat homosexuality on an equal basis with heterosexuality." He would also argue that marriage laws could become unconstitutional and that all marriage laws were in potential danger from a Lawrence win. These concerns were put aside and had little weight in the case, other claims that the case would make polygamy and bestiality legal in the bedroom were criticized for being outlandish and inherently insulting to the court. Professor Laurence Tribe wrote that Lawrence v. Texas “may well be remembered as the Brown v. Board of Education of gay and lesbian Americans.” What this case did do was make the roadway to equality for gay, lesbian and bisexual people. The landmark case of Obergefell V. Hodges that made same-sex marriage a fundamental right was a possibility because

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.

Reasoning- The Supreme Court’s decision was split and provided various points of view on the issues just like the American population and some sections are still being challenged today. Chief Justice Roberts was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayer, and Kagan to form the opinion of the court on this case. However, there are sections where Justices felt split on the opinion. Due to this reason, there is a detailed explanation of which

Stare Decisis plays a large role in Judicial Restraint. Stare Decisis is sticking to an established ruling that was handed down by past judges or jurors. A form of judicial restraint is called the political question doctrine, and it is significant in understanding this interpretation of the law. The political question doctrine is when a court acknowledges that the constitution is violated but does not decide to act. There are plenty of examples of Judicial Restraint throughout our history but the one that stands out the most in my mind is Gore Vs. Bush. In this case the Florida supreme courts methods of recounting the presidential ballots was considered and ruled as having violated the Equal Protection Laws which is under the fourteenth amendment in a presidential election. Everyone seems to know that something wrong was done, but no one really understands what happened. Before this debate I didn’t realize that this was an example of Judicial Restraint. And this is why I caint agree with either interpretations of the law.

Sullivan starts by quoting the Supreme Court’s declaration that “[a] state cannot deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws” (83), demonstrating that gays and lesbians are entitled to equal rights with other people. He is absolutely right. Gays and lesbians, as citizens, should have equal rights. They do have equal rights. But Sullivan makes a “radical proposal” (Sullivan 83) on the issue. He concludes that, because gays are equal in the view of the law, they should be allowed to marry. True, gays and non-gays are equal under the law. However, individual freedoms are very different from the proposition of gay marriage. When looked at objectively, gays have no less rights then non-gays. Moreover, the equality we have is judicial, not biological. Homosexual relationships lack the biological conditions required by nature for marriage,