The Supreme Meme: Lawrence v. Texas

[pegkerr]

The Rules: Post info about ONE Supreme Court decision, modern or historic to your lj. (Any decision, as long as it's not Roe v. Wade.) For those who see this on your f-list, take the meme to your OWN lj to spread the fun.

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case. In the 6-3 ruling, the justices struck down the sodomy law in Texas. Controversially, the Court did not deem it unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, which could have led to further gay rights reforms such as legalizing same sex marriage. The court had previously addressed the same issue in 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick, where it upheld a challenged Georgia statute, not finding a constitutional protection of sexual privacy.

Lawrence explicitly overruled Bowers, holding that it had viewed the liberty interest too narrowly. The majority held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Lawrence has the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United States that purport to criminalize sodomy between consenting same-sex adults acting in private. It may also invalidate the application of sodomy laws to heterosexual sex based solely on morality concerns.

The case attracted much public attention, and a large number of amici curiae ("friends of the court") briefs were filed. Its outcome was celebrated by gay rights advocates, who hoped that further legal advances might result as a consequence. Conversely, it was decried by social conservatives as an example of judicial activism.

Majority by: Kennedy
Joined by: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Concurrence by: O'Connor
Dissent by: Scalia
Joined by: Rehnquist, Thomas
Dissent by: Thomas

Comments

[pixelfish.livejournal.com]

I did Loving vs. Virginia. (Can't think why Palin couldn't think of that, what with Prop 8 coming up in California. My runner up is Miranda vs. Arizona.)

[nwl.livejournal.com]

I'm curious - why do think Palin would disagree with this decision? Not being a lawyer, I don't recognize it.

[pixelfish.livejournal.com]

Actually, I forgot that she had to disagree with the decision...which makes the question trickier.

[nmalfoy.livejournal.com]

Ahhh right... another person mentioned this one too. It was a truly important case and I feel like a doof for not remembering it. I was going way back to Brown v. Topeka Board of Education.

I must endeavor to live in the present.

But now that I have you... what are "friends of the court" briefs? Just other lawyers saying "I agree"?

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

They are filed by someone who is not a party in the case but who wants to weigh in with information or arguments that the case might consider. Can be a person or an organization or government entity. For example, the American Civil Liberties Union often files briefs on behalf of a party who contends his constitutional rights have been violated, even though the claimant has his own attorney. Friends of the Earth or the Sierra Club may file a supporting brief in an environmental action in which they are not actually parties. Usually the court must give permission for the brief to be filed and arguments may only be made with the agreement of the party the amicus curiae is supporting, and that argument comes out of the time allowed for that party's presentation to the court.

[nmalfoy.livejournal.com]

Oh, that's cool! How much consideration is given to these briefs? How often is it done?

So glad I have smrt friends.

[nwl.livejournal.com]

You do realize that Curic's question was which other Supreme Court case she (being Palin) disagreed with, don't you? I must admit, not being a lawyer, I'd have trouble coming up with a Supreme Court decision I disagreed with off the top of my head.

I would suggest watching that clip of the interview if you think I'm incorrect. I've seen it played several times and still can't figure out why people are naming all these landmark cases as ones they "disagree" with. They apparently think Katie asked a general memory question. I know my hearing is not the best, but the close captioning also has that as the question.

[pixelfish.livejournal.com]

Dred Scott. Historically, it's the king of sucky Supreme Court decisions.

[pixelfish.livejournal.com]

And I admit that I forgot the original context of the question. (Partly because I haven't seen it live--not having TV.)

But the meme doesn't ask for one you disagree with. Just any landmark Supreme Court decision.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

The meme when I saw it, was just to name a Supreme Court. In that case, I immediately would have thought of Bowers vs. Hardwick, which was the case that Lawrence v. Texas overturned.