TQ WEEK 6
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Rutgers University, Newark *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
LAW 531
Subject
Political Science
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
1
Uploaded by MegaSnowHedgehog7
TQ WEEK 6 TQ 6.1:
What was the Court’s holding in Bowers v. Hardwick
? How did the court rule in Lawrence v. Texas
? How do those decisions compare to the Court’s prior holdings in Griswold
, Roe
, and Casey
?
The court in Bower v. Hardwick maintained the Georgia statute that outlawed anal and oral intercourse as
part of the crime of sodomy. They rejected the argument that the sex acts fell under the court's definition of privacy in the Griswold, Roe, and Casey cases. They asserted, “We think it is evident that none of the rights announced in those cases bears any resemblance to the claimed constitutional right of homosexuals to engage in acts of sodomy that is asserted in this case.” Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 190–91 (1986)
In the case of Lawrence v. Texas, the court invalidated the ruling in Bower and declared that it is illegal to impose criminal penalties for consenting sexual acts between individuals of the same sex. This decision was consistent with the rulings in Griswold, Roe, and Casey, as it concluded that individuals possess the freedom to make choices without facing criminal penalties.
TQ 6.2:
What legal arguments does Justice Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas
raise as to the Court’s overturning the state law? How might his being an “originalist” play into his dissent?
Justice Scalia contended that the first legislation was firmly based on historical precedent and that society
possesses the authority to deem certain behaviors immoral and subject them to criminalization. Furthermore, he contended that the court's ruling demonstrates their alignment with one faction in a political conflict, undermining their expected impartiality as a neutral entity.
I believe Justice Scalia may have held reservations about the lifestyle choices of gays and advocated for maintaining the status quo. He stated that the law had deep historical origins, and his statement was accurate. Previous judgments are indicative of the prevailing conditions in the country at that time, thereby justifying Justice Scalia's belief that the law was effectively fulfilling its intended function during that period.
TQ 6.3:
Is the state allowed to assert an interest in preserving a person’s life? Under what circumstances,
if any, might those interests take precedence over an individual’s right to privacy?
When an individual is incapable of making decisions, the state has the right to prioritize the preservation of their life. Those interests are given priority when dealing with an incapable individual or when terminally
sick individuals want to end their medical treatment. TQ 6.4:
How do the holdings in Cruzan and Washington v. Glucksburg
differ? What does their difference say about an implied fundamental right to die or other fundamental privacy rights in a medical context?
The court in the Cruzan case determined that individuals have the freedom to choose to reject medical treatment, provided that there is substantial evidence and proof to support the exercise of this right. The court in Glucksburg determined that physician-assisted suicide does not enjoy constitutional protection as
a right. They mentioned Cruzan, highlighting that the case involved the rejection of medical intervention, but emphasized that this particular situation was distinct. Cruzan highlighted the principle of autonomy, affirming that individuals have the prerogative to decline medical intervention, even if it results in their demise. Glucksburg stressed that physician-assisted suicide was regarded as a deliberate action to bring about the end of one's life.
Discover more documents: Sign up today!
Unlock a world of knowledge! Explore tailored content for a richer learning experience. Here's what you'll get:
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help