Supreme court cases - Essay Example

A 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 decision and stated 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 Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy and hence invalidates the laws of the many States that still make 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 Court’s prior cases has construed the Constitution to confer a right of privacy 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. Society 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 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. United 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 comprehensive 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 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 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 important when deciding 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 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