Loving V. Virginia:

Background:
  In 1958 2 people, a white man Richard Loving and a black woman Mildred Jeter were married in D.C. When they returned to Virginia after they were charged with the state's antimiscengenation statute which banned inter-racial marriages. The Lovings were found guilty and were given a year in jail.

Issue:
 Does the Antimiscengenation law violate the 14th amendment clause of Equal Protection?

Decision:
 In a 9 to 0 decision in favor of Loving the Supreme Court decided that the law was unconstitutional.
M: Warren all judges supported Warren except Stewart
C: Stewart

Opinion:
  I strongly agree with the decision of the Supreme Court. First of all, the fact that the clause discriminates race is ridiculous. This totally violates the 14th amendment because all people are allowed equal protection regardless of race and gender. Marriage between man and women is considered a fundamental right and the establishment of this clause would be taking away that right. There is no definite motive as to why this statute would be established, it only represents animosity toward blacks or vice versa by not allowed interracial marriage.

Background:

    In 2003 Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion ban act. This act banned abortions regarding when "the fetal head or any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother" Outraged, Dr. Leroy Carhart, and many other physicians who also perform abortions sued to stop the act. A federal district Court then ruled the act as unconstitutional  and after another appeal it went to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

    Is the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional and a violation of personal privacy and liberty established by the 5th amendment because the act lacks an exception to mothers who's lives are in danger?

Decision:

    The Supreme Court, in a 5v4 decision, ruled that the congress's ban on partial-birth abortion was not unconstitutional. 

M: (W) Kennedy (joined) Scalia, Alito, Roberts

C:(W)Thomas (joined) Scalia

D:(W)Ginsburg (joined) Stevens Souter Ginsburg Breyer

Opinion:

I disagree with the ruling of this case. The fact that it is a late stage abortion where an abortion is totally unacceptable. By that stage in pregnancy there is no doubt that life has been created and is being sustained, therefor the baby has protection of his or her liberty. Additionally the fundamental right of the baby to life overrides the right to the mothers privacy in her abortion. Also i believe that life begins when the baby forms a heartbeat so that would make abortion okay until the heartbeat has started, in my opinion.

Atkins v. Virginia


Background:
  Daryl Renard Atkins was found guilty of many crimes including armed robbery and capital murder. During the sentencing phase of his trial, the defending side used a Doctor that testified and said that Atkins was mildly mentally retarded. The jury found him guilty but the Virginia supreme court issued a second hearing and again he was sentenced to death.

Question:
  Are the mentally retarded allowed to be executed under the curel and unusual punishment clause in the Eighth Amendment?

Decision:
  In a 6 v. 3 decision the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty could not be applied on the mentally handicapped.
  M:Stevens, O'Connor,Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
  D: Rehnquist and Scalia Thomas joins both




Opinion:

  Due to the numerous factors regarded the culpability of the mentally handicapped, i totally agree with the decisions of the Supreme Court. The evolving standards idea must be applied here because we know so much more about the brain and how the mentally handicapped cannot think as clear as a normal person can. Also not many states executed mentally handicapped. From the case of Furman V. Georgia we obtain 4 questions to ask ourselves, to answer if a punishment is cruel or unusual. When answering these questions one can see that it is cruel and unusual. '

Background:
   Patrick Kennedy was found guilty of rape by a Louisiana court and was sentenced to death. In Lousiana, at that time, the law said that if a rape occurs and the victim is under 12 years old the death sentence may be given. Kennedy appealed saying that that law was unconstitutional.



Issue:
   Does giving the death sentence for a child rape violate the Eigth amendment clause of cruel and unusual punishment?


Decision:
   The Supreme Court ruled in a 5v4 decision for kennedy stating that it was unconstitutional.
    M: Kennedy Stevens Souter Ginsburg Breyer
    D:Alito Roberts Scalia Thomas



Opinion:
    Although ethically Kennedy deserves to be killed, sentencing someone to death because of a rape crime is unusual. The majority of the states do not execute people for rape. This sentence would violate the national consensus. The decisions from Coker V. Georgia should apply to everyone and should not matter what age the person is. On the other hand, it's also important to consider the effect of the girls life. Kennedy may have just ruined her life and cause her to have many negatives in her life because of this, maybe even ultimately stopping it. This may be just as bad as killing someone

Background:
    In 1993 Christopher Simmons was sentenced to death but he was still a minor and after 9 years of appeals he finally was admitted into the Missouri Supreme Court. Because of the U.S. Supreme court case's decision in Atkins V. Virginia regarding the execution of the mentally Ill The Missouri Supreme Court decided to review Simmons  case. Using the Atkins case as precedent the Missouri court overturned the conviction and the case went to the supreme court.

Issue:
   Does the execution of minors violate the cruel and unusual prong of the eith amendment and should it be incorporated throughout the states?

Decision:
   In a 5 V. 4 decision the supreme court decided that Simmons was not allowed to be executed provided that it does infringe on the Cruel and Unusual Amendment.
   M: Kennedy,Souter,Ginsburg,Breyer
   C:Stevens, Ginsburg
   D: Scalia and O'connor. Rehinquist and Thomas joined both

Opinion:
  I agree with the decision of the Supreme Court in this case. Because of the ever changing society, I believe that the constitution could not be literal or else it would have to change every frequently in order to evolve with society. The standards of decency could change very quickly given the circumstances and the constitution should consider what is normal at that time. Also according to Atkins V. Virginia executing the mentally ill is unconstitutional so why would executing minors be constitutional?

                                                                 Gideon V Wainwright

Background:

Gideon was charged by the Florida state court with breaking and entering, because he didn’t have the resources to employ a lawyer in his defence he asked one to be appointed for him. The court refused this request because it only applied in federal cases. So, Gideon defended himself and was convicted for 5 years in a state prison.

Issue:

                Does the refusal to appoint an attourney to Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process which is protected by his Sixth and Fourteeenth Amendments?

Decision:

In a 9v0 vote the Supreme court sided with Gideon proposing that it was unfair that he was not appointed a lawyer.

Opinion was unanimous

Opinion:

For this case I completely agree with the Supreme Court. The fact that the amendment only applied to federal cases is ridiculous. All people should be allowed a lawyer if they want one. It is not fair if one side has a educated lawyer and one side does not. That violates the idea of a fair trial. I completely believe that for one side not to have a lawyer because they cannot afford one is totally absurd and unfair.

	Like Justice Black said "lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries."

Kyllo V US

Background:

Danny Kyllo was suspected of growing marijuana in his triplex. a department of the interior agent used a thermal imaging device to look for hot-spots in the home made by high intensity lamps that are usually used for indoor marijuana growth. The scan showed that these hot-spots were present. Based on informants utility bills and the thermal imaging a judge issued a warrant and he was convicted  on a federal drug charge and after he tried to cover up  the evidence he was seized and entered a conditional guilty plea.

Issue:

Does the use of thermal scanning and imaging of the interior of someone's home violate the Fourth Amendment right?

Decision:

5V4 in favor of Kylo

M: Scalia

D: Stevens

The use of thermal scanning in homes was a violation of the Fourth Amendment right according to the Supreme Court

Opinion:

I agree with the Supreme Court's decision. Although the thermal imaging only showed globs of heat and nothing really personal it still is an intrusion of the person's privacy. Just like in Silverman V. U.S. in which a mic was put near a heating duct so that they could hear, It is the same thing. The mic did not show any personal things but it was steal ruled as unconstitutional. Just like how the thermal imaging was. Additionally if this were to be constitutional that would mean that the government can just look into anybody's house using thermal imaging.