Culture War and Supreme Court
By Scott Brownrigg
Roe v. Wade (1973) vote of 7-2
Rights involved: right to privacy
Impact: the decision was that of stopping her from having an abortion was in violation of her right to privacy and due process under the 14th Amendment. Women should be able to choose wether or not they have a baby and it is their right to have an abortion.
Historical significance: After this case is was declared that it was a women's right to have an abortion if they so please and they can not be stopped if it is what they want.
Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) vote of 6-3
The issue: The University of Michigan used a 150-point scale to rank applicants, with 100 points needed to guarantee admission. The University gave underrepresented ethnic groups, including African- Americans, Histpanics, and Native Amricans, an automatic 20-point bonus towards their score, while a perfect SAT score was worth 12 points. The petitioners, Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher were both denied admission and took it to court.
Right involved: equal protection clause
Impact: it brought to attention that some schools were giving extra points to racial minorities instead of making individual decisions based on the applicants history and not just their race.
Historical significance: this case stopped schools currently following this point system from doing so anymore. They must make decisions on a applicant to applicant basis and can't base any extra points off of race.
United States v. Windsor (2013) vote of 5-4
Right involved: equal protection
Impact: it was an important case in that same sex couples who were legally married were not receiving all rights they should receive and this case fought for that equal protection right for all legally married same sex couples.
Historical significance: this case declared that from then on any same sex couples that are recognized by the state are entitled to the same rights that a man and woman marriage would have.
Texas v Johnson (1989) vote of 5-4
Right involved: freedom of non verbal speech
Impact: Texas wanted to charge him with desecration of the American flag. Johnson continue to claim the first amendment saying that he did not disturb the peace and it was his right to nonverbal speech and he could do what he did legally.
Historical significance: this case stated that what Johnson did was protected by his first amendment and he could not be charged with anything. Someone may burn the flag in a as long as it does not disturb the peace or cause any other damage.