wrong supreme court decision

TheFederal Supreme Court is thefinalcourtin theUnited States, andits decisionhas a bindingeffecton thelawunless itgivessubsequences that seemto overruleit.Rulingmadeby theFederal Supreme Court in United States resultin bindingprecedentsandlowercourtsincludingthestatessupremecourtsbindto them. Althoughtheholdersof theofficeof theSupreme Court are justicesof veryhighanddistinguishedknowledgein mattersof jurisprudence,there are somedecisionsthat werereachedat without puttingregardto theprovisionsof theconstitution.Otherhas beendecidingunder somepolitical,moralandsocialinfluence.Alsoothers are dueto theignoranceof thelawwhileothers havebeendeterminedto thelackof an explicitlawunder which theSupreme Court judgescan relyon.An analysisof one of thesecaseswill provesomeof theinconsistencytheSupreme Court has hadandtheeffectsof thesameto thepeopleof United States of America.

ThecaseI choseformy analysisis Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986). Thereasonformy choosingthecaseis becauseittoucheson a fundamentalhumanright,andanyfouldecisionon thesamewouldaffectthelivesof theinhabitantsof theuninvitedStates of America. Rightto privacyis a provisionthattheUnited States citizenenjoyas stipulatedin theconstitution.Ajudicialprecedentby a supremecourtis bindingon all thelowercourtsin America as statedabove.Theexpectation is thattherightto privacywould belimitedby applicationof thelawsetby theSupreme Court of thepeople.Bowers wasfightingforhis rightto privacyas providedby thesupremelawof theland.The started at the district court in the Georgian state and thebattle went on until it had to be determined by the highest court inthe federal United States of America. Myopinionis thatthedecisionof theSupreme Court, in thiscase,wasfoulandthatitapparentlyfailedto considerfundamentalconstitutionalstipulations.

Factsof theCase

Bowershadearlierbeenissuedwith a warrantof arrestforfailingto appearin courtafter hehadbeenchargedwith an ordinancethat prohibiteddrinking in public.In exercisingthecourt`sorder,thepolicewentto Bowers residenceto affectthearrest.Theywereinvitedto his residenceby a differentperson.TheAtlanta policeofficersobservedthatBower wasengagingin oralsexwith a companion.Thesexualrelationshipwasbetween two adultsandalsoconsensual. Bowers threatenedto instigatefortheofficersto be firedsince theyhadenteredhis house.However,thetwo werearrestedandchargedwith sodomywhichin theoperationsof thelawin Georgia includedoralsexandsameoroppositesexanal intercourse.Bowers suedin thefederalSupreme Court theattorneygeneralclaiminghehas invalidatedthelawandthathewasof theopinionhewasliableforhis actions.Thefederalcourtof appealdeclaredGeorgia statelawon homosexuality unconstitutional.Thestateof Georgia wasnot satisfiedandappealedthedecisionof thecourtof appealin theSupreme Court.

FundamentalIssues in the Case and the Decision of the Majority

Theissuein Bowers wassimplyon therightto privacy.BowerswantedtheSupreme Court to providethelawthepowerto protecttherightto privacyincludingthedilemmahewasthenfacingThe Supreme Court heldthatwasimplicitin dueprocessof thefourteenth amendmentto theUnited States Constitution.Accordingto thefactsof thecase,theSupreme Court ruledthattherightwaslimitedto privatesexualconductandmoresobecauseitinvolvedthehomosexualact.Thedecisionof thecourtwasmadein a 5-4 vote.Thedecisionof themajoritywasreadby Justice Byron White.Thedecisionof themajorityframeda legalquestionto clarifyifthere wasa fundamentalprovisionthat gavethehomosexualstherightto engagein sodomy.Themajority,however,providedtheanswerin negativeandI quote‘to claimthata rightto engagein suchconductis `deeplyrooted in thisNation`s historyandtradition`or`implicitin theconceptof orderedliberty`is, at best,facetious”

Dissentsof the Case

Inrefutingthedecisionof theSupreme Court, I would gowith theargumentof one of thejusticeswhohadvotedon themajoritysideduring thecase.JusticePowell hadvotedto upholdthedecisionof thecourtof appealbutlaterchangeddue to influenceby one of theconservativemembers.Homosexualityhada badhistoryandin Sir William Blackstone’s word,itwasreferredto as “acrimenot fitto be named”thejudgewasnot ledby lawin makingthedecision,buttheinfluenceof colleagueunderminedhis rationaljudgment.Referringto thewordsof ChiefJustice Burger in Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, themainfocusin decidinga casewassupposedto be on theprotectionof human’sdevelopmentandforthegoodof thecommunity.In decidingthecase,themajorityseemedto focussomuchtheactof homosexuality ratherthan thefactsof thelaw.Thecourtalsodismissedthepresentationon thetreatmentof libertyandprivacyinterestof thegaypeople(Merriman,Pg. 314).In the case, the majority side seemed to rely so much on the moralityof homosexuality rather than the law. They relied on the historicalperception and the reception that homosexuals received and did notwant to divert from that route.

Effectsof the Case Ruling

Thecaseandthedecisiontheretoshedlighton thecourtsreluctanceto issuetherightto privacy.Itwasclearthatthecourtswasreluctantto issuerulingwith theeffectthattherightto privacybe recognizedas providedby theconstitutionandin casewherethecourtprovideditdidnot gobeyond theoneitalreadyhadgranted.Thesamecan beinferredto theRoe v. Wade, which wasa caseseekingtheSupreme Court to granttherightto abortion,andthejurisprudenceof thecourtwasin testin regardto privacy.Itledto theabolitionof andcriminalization of both theoralsexandanal sexalthoughthefederalSupreme Court providedthesamebutonlyforthehomosexuals.Thestatelawrarelyusedthedecisionas precedentin enforcingprivateconsensual conductbutusedmostlythesameto justifybansandlimitationson gays. Thedecisionwould latercometo beoverruledby theHigh Tech Gays v. Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office, a1990 case(Andersen,Pg. 121).It was the first time in the history of the federal Supreme Courtthat a precedent less than twenty years had been overruled. Thedecisionof thatcaseis howevermostlyusedas precedencein manyothercasesto date.After thedeterminationof thatcourt,manystateshas since thenrepealedtheir lawson sodomy.Further,a numberof statescourtshavegonea stepabove by invalidatingthelawsunder privacyandoranyotherprovision.Thelawusedto upholdthefactsof thiscasewould alsobe struckdown by theGeorgia Supreme Court as revealed Powell v. State, a 1998 case(Merriman,Pg. 158).

Conclusion

Consideringverythemanyreservationsheldby verymanyotherprofessionalin thelegalprofession,itis clearthatthecasefallshortof observingtheprovisionsof theSupreme Court. Thecaseactedas a stepping stoneandledto theamendmentof thelawon homosexuality andtheconstitutionprovisionon therightto privacywellprovided,to determinethecase.Themajoritydidnot usetheconstitutionas theprimarytoolbutusedtheir perceptionon theissuein question,hence,failingto providethefundamentalopportunityfortheexerciseof therightto privacy.Itis nowonderthecasewould be overruledinonlyseven yearsto provethatthere wasneglectof thelaw.Mistakeshelpin understandingtheweaknessandthemistakemadehelpedin removingtheinconsistencyin thelawon rightsto privacyin relationto homosexuality.

WorkCited

Andersen,Ellen Ann. OutOf The Closets &amp Into The Courts.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2006. Print.

JustiaLaw,. `Bowers V. Hardwick 478 U.S. 186 (1986)`. N.p., 2015. Web. 9May 2015.

Merriman,Scott A. Religion And The Law In America. Santa Barbara,Calif.: ABC-CLIO, 2007. Print.

Posner,Richard A. Sex And Reason. Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUniversity Press, 1992. Print.