Dissent

"Even if there were a plaintiff in this case capable of litigating the issue which the Court decides, I would reach a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Court. I have difficulty in concluding, as the Court does, that the right of "privacy" is involved in this case. Texas, by the statute here challenged, bars the performance of a medical abortion by a licensed physician on a plaintiff such as Roe. A transaction resulting in an operation such as this is not "private" in the ordinary usage of that word. Nor is the "privacy" that the Court finds here even a distant relative of the freedom from searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which the Court has referred to as embodying a right to privacy. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)."

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_j.htm

"If the Court means by the term "privacy" no more than that the claim of a person to be free from unwanted state regulation of consensual transactions may be a form of "liberty" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, there is no doubt that similar claims have been upheld in our earlier decisions on the basis of that liberty. I agree with the statement of MR. JUSTICE STEWART in his concurring opinion that the "liberty," against deprivation of which without due process the Fourteenth [410 U.S. 113, 173] Amendment protects, embraces more than the rights found in the Bill of Rights. But that liberty is not guaranteed absolutely against deprivation, only against deprivation without due process of law. The test traditionally applied in the area of social and economic legislation is whether or not a law such as that challenged has a rational relation to a valid state objective. Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483, 491 (1955). The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment undoubtedly does place a limit, albeit a broad one, on legislative power to enact laws such as this. If the Texas statute were to prohibit an abortion even where the mother's life is in jeopardy, I have little doubt that such a statute would lack a rational relation to a valid state objective under the test stated in Williamson, supra. But the Court's sweeping invalidation of any restrictions on abortion during the first trimester is impossible to justify under that standard, and the conscious weighing of competing factors that the Court's opinion apparently substitutes for the established test is far more appropriate to a legislative judgment than to a judicial one."

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_j.htm

Basically what Mr. Justice Rehnquist is saying is that the issue is not about privacy. It's about civil liberty. It's about getting a law passed so that there will be the liberty to have an abortion without having any penalty in doing so.

Your Own Argument

I absolutely agree with the final ruling of the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court case. It was blatantly obvious that women’s rights were being taken away by the State. The reason that this case has been argued over and over for years is because of religious beliefs and where the line between murder and prevention lay. If there was a black and white statement of what we should do in life then decisions would be simple and sweet. It’s not always the case, clearly on this topic.

I agree partially with what the dissenting Justices' had to say. I agree that liberty had something to do with this subject. I believe that a womans right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness is all we have in this world sometimes, and that those laws must be held to the highest respect. If we as a people decide to step back and allow our own beliefs of what is right and good and true be what is right and good and true for all people then we would be a bunch of dictators. There would be choas and anarchy. Our whole world as American citizens is based on the fact that we can say, do, feel, express, and believe anything that we want to. No one can say no to us. We can live our lives day by day doing the things we want to as long as no one is harmed or forced into that situation. But by not granting women to have an abortion is doing just that. We are forcing people with our now previous laws to be harmed mentally and physically when they do not want to be. Why would we want to harm our own citizens?

We must not, as a people, decide for others something so vital and so extreme in it's essence. Having a child is life altering, completely and entirely. What the dissenting judges believed is that this whole thing is a big cop out. They are claiming that this has nothing to do with privacy. But what is more private then a mother and her child? What is more important and special then if a women should or should not bring another life into this world?

Throughout the entire world we have starving people. Men, women, and children are on the streets or six feet under because of over population, and bad governements. There are wonderful people who would rather not bring another life into this world, but to care for ones who are already here. There are women who have been raped repeatedly. Who are we to decide that she must have that child? It's outrageous, and it is not my decision. I refuse to decide for another person something so private as that.

Rule of Law

"Basis of the Roe v. Wade decision:

Roe v. Wade was decided primarily on the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a part of the Bill of Rights. The Court's decision in this case was that the Ninth Amendment, in stating that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," protected a person's right to privacy."

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortionuslegal/p/roe_v_wade.htm

So above is basically saying that since the United States Constiution says it's wrong, it is wrong. The United States Constitution is law above any law and because of this, we as a people must not refuse to give women the right to choose. We must liberate them!

Reasoning of the Court

The reasoning of the courts decision is very simple to comprehend. Basically, the Constitution of the United States of America is law, plain and simple. There is nothing above that law. Everyone from the President to the dog walker must obey these rules set into play by our founding fathers.

Decision of the Court

The decision of the court was decided that it was unconstitutional for anyone to revoke the right to terminate a pregnancy if the mother decides in complete consciousness and understanding. Below is the exact stating of the decision.

“It is unnecessary to decide the injunctive relief issue since the Texas authorities will doubtless fully recognize the Court's ruling that the Texas criminal abortion statutes are unconstitutional.”

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_a.htm

“Mr. Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court.

This Texas federal appeal and its Georgia companion, Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, present constitutional challenges to state criminal abortion legislation. The Texas statutes under attack here are typical of those that have been in effect in many States for approximately a century. The Georgia statutes, in contrast, have a modern cast and are a legislative product that, to an extent at least, obviously reflects the influences of recent attitudinal change, of advancing medical knowledge and techniques, and of new thinking about an old issue.

We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires. One's philosophy, one's experiences, one's exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one's religious training, one's attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one's thinking and conclusions about abortion.

In addition, population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones tend to complicate and not to simplify the problem.”

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_c.htm

The quote above is the only a fraction of the exact statement and opinion of the court given by Justice Blackmun. He goes on to say that “Jane Roe” even though is a fake name, is not fake in any form, but even more real because she holds a hope for women who want help and who are constitutionally held back.

Week 9 - Illicit Crime

Illicit crime is a big skeleton that is in every countries closet. No one wants to go and buy a 20,000 dollar purse when they can buy the same thing or a knock off for 40 dollars on the streets of Hong Kong. But in the end it is something that needs to be brought to the light. We do not need to be so naïve in this world to believe that a purse is just a knock off and it will not affect anything else or anyone else for that matter. Well, wake up world! Every time you have some kind of knock off sold on the streets you promote drugs, violence, illegal weapons, war, and even illegal human trading, aka slavery.

It does not seem like those things could even relate what so ever to the other. But low and behold, they do. When someone ships a load of illegal fabrics to make purses, what makes them not want to make even more money by sticking in a kilo of heroin in with it? A good way of looking at this type of trade is like looking at the effects of drugs themselves. If you have marijuana once a month, what would stop you from trying cocaine or any other type of drug? You are already doing something illegal, why not try something different? Marijuana has been labeled a gateway drug. Well, selling illegal items could be the gateway drugs to selling illegal weapons or helping people bring in humans that they are putting through slavery now or prostitution. They could even be selling humans for body parts!

Either way, it’s absolutely disgusting and ILLEGAL! I admit, I too have bought things that were knock offs. I never knew how intertwined those horrible things are with that purse I wanted to get. Lord knows it won’t happen again.

Issue of the Case

This case is before the court because it affects every single person in the country, and even the world. Every single day women get raped and have to deal with the effects of being left all alone to take care of this child that has the eyes of her attacker. How much more terrifying could this be?

Also, the women who are uneducated in sex or even where children can come from are being left with a child they did not even intend on having.

"According to the report, "News about health occupies a relatively small amount of American news coverage across all platforms: 3.6 percent of news during 2007 and the first half of 2008." In a list of most frequently covered topics, health came in eighth -- far above religion, education and celebrities, but below the economy, crime, foreign affairs and politics." http://www.alternet.org/sex/113065/study:_u.s._media_keep_people_uneducated_about_health_issues/

It is amazing how people would take away the right of another human being. I would hate it if someone took away any of my rights. Now, I do not necessarily believe in abortion. I would not ever even have an abortion. But I will not take away the right of another person to make that choice. Life is all about choices, and what is the world without choices? It is no life at all.

The thing about this case is that it has been fought over for years upon years. I doubt it will truly ever end either. Especially with people who put religion over common sense and reason. I have said this previously, but I do not believe religion is bad, it just blinds people from being rational in situations that they normally would be completely rational about if religion was not tied into it. It is sad really. With that being said, in the Catholic religion they are against not only abortion, but also any type of contraception. I want to make it clear that I do not believe abortion is a type of contraceptive. They do not believe that you should be using birth control, condoms, spermacides, etc. The reason these types of contraceptives were invented were to help people who were married to that did not want to have any more children to have the option to still have sex and be in a healthy relationship. It also helps people who have diseases be able to have those types of relationships. There includes the people who are so wrapped up in believing that aids only affects people who are gay. But let’s not get into that too much.

"Ruling that declaratory, though not injunctive, relief was warranted, the court declared the abortion statutes void as vague and overbroadly infringing those plaintiffs' Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights."
http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_a.htm

In the end this whole thing has to deal with the fact that people’s rights were being taken away. The government also doesn’t believe in murdering young children either. They decided upon a time frame in which you would be able to have the abortion and that it would have to be in a hospital or clinic. They also wanted to make sure that people could have a choice. That was the ultimate goal.

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_a.htm

Week 8 - Update on Supreme Court Case

As of today I have researched new things about the court case of Roe vs. Wade. I found out some very interesting facts about the case in 1973 as well as what "Jane Roe" is doing today.

Apparently she had been at the Notre Dame graduation ceremony when President Barack Obama had been speaking. She was protesting the protestors that had come to speak about how they do not believe in what President Barack Obama stands for. Those different ideals include things such as: Abortion and Contraception, the War, and other very liberal things. Because Notre Dame is a Catholic University, they feel that President Barack Obama's precense was rude and unwelcome since he is a democrat and that he represents things that the Catholic Church looks down upon. By the end of the day, she had been arrested.

Going back to the court case, I have been very successful in finding out information because the Roe vs. Wade case is still such a controversy and people still are fighting for and/or against it. This woman has some real guts for going around and getting arrested so many times. I am almost positive that it is such a hard thing to be in the media eye as a person that has no morals or is going to hell. And maybe it is not the media’s eyes but it is more so the people of the United States who have the idea in their head that she can’t be a good person because she believes in something that their God has “said” is punishable. It is just amazing to me that people are so hateful towards each other over something that they allow to rule over them. I do not believe faith is bad, but religion blinds people from things that in any other situation they would be so rational about. It's truly amazing what people will do to stand up for their beliefs.

Facts of the Case

On December 13, 1971, a pregnant single woman named Norma Leah McCorvey, also named “Jane Roe”, in the historical U.S. Supreme Court lawsuit of Roe vs. Wade, went into court to begin a very long journey in women’s rights. “Wade” was district attorney of Dallas County, Texas, Hendry B. Wade.

"The majority opinion was written by Harry Blackmun. Concurring opinions were written by Potter Stewart, Warren Burger, and William O. Douglas. The Dissenting opinions were written by William Rehnquist and Byron White."
http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_a.htm

When Norma Leah McCorvey brought suit to the Supreme Court, it was because she was pregnant. Before she brought the case to the court, a woman with no child wanted to change the laws so that she could have an abortion if contraception did not work, unpreparedness of parenthood, or impairment of the woman’s health. She said that it was against her constitutional rights as well as any other woman who would like to terminate her pregnancy in the first few months of pregnancy.

The lawyers that had argued the case were:

"Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee for the plaintiff, and John Tolle, Jay Floyd, and Robert Flowers as the defendant’s lawyers. The judges that were the majority include: Harry Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Chief Justice Warren Burger, William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, Lewis Powell, and Potter Stewart. The judges that were the dissent include: William Rehnquist and Byron White."
http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_a.htm

The state law violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. The State cannot override that right but it has legitimate interest in protecting the health of the woman and potentiality of human life.

The case was reargued once on October 11, 1972, and then finally decided on January 22, 1973.

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_a.htm

Week 7 - Pacific Heights

In the movie “Pacific Heights” a tenant comes in and decides to drive the landlords absolutely insane. The rights of the landlords seem to be blurred in the movie because of the fact that laws are different in every state. In San Francisco, California, apparently if you take possession of the room you attempt to rent before any rent is given to the landlord and change the locks the landlord has to evict you through the court because the tenant now has rights. Although the rights were forcibly taken, they are granted by the state and therefore have to be fulfilled by the landlord or legally removed from the premises. This was the law in the movie. I am not sure if this is true in the state of California. To my knowledge if a lease was never signed nor consideration given then the tenant has no legal right and the landlord would have a certain amount of time to remove the tenant from the premises.

Another law that I know of that is in San Francisco is that if a person who signed a lease and has children but decides to not pay their rent, they have six (6) months free to be able to find another home. But they can only do so if they have children.

Laws like that tend to protect the tenant over the landlord. I personally believe it should be the other way around. There are a million more risks being a landlord than a tenant. The landlord would have to open his/her home to a stranger and take a lot of liabilities that would/could end with court, fees, and/or the loss of the home entirely. As far as having a family and being kicked out on the streets, I can understand why the courst would feel it was correct to keep a family in a home for a period of time, but for six months is rediculous. It should never be that long.

Instant Extra Credit

Three Names I have been called: Eugenia, Gina, G.

Three Jobs I have had in my life (include unpaid if you have to): Waitress, Student Worker, Peer Mentor

Three Places I Have Lived: Milwaukee, Wisconsin – Henderson, Nevada – Chalkis, Greece

Three TV Shows that I watch: Lost, The L Word, The Tutors

Three places I have been: Greece, Mexico, Italy

People that e-mail me regularly: Jenny Stepp, My Dad, and my Aunt Karren

Three of my favorite foods: ANY Greek food, Pasta, and Shrimp

Three cars I have driven: My Buick Regal, My dads Infiniti Q45, and My moms Jaguar XJ8

Three things I am looking forward to: Relaxing this weekend, Relaxing this summer break, and hopfully going to Miami in the next 6 months.

Week 6 - Greed Is Good

Wall Street is a messy place. It is loud and crazy. Yet, the most interesting thing of Wall Street and “big business” is all the people that take and take without earning it. Getting a one million dollar bonus is outrageous. I suppose if you make five billion it is absolutely nothing, but when the person who developed the R.E.E.T. earns a two billion dollar bonus in 2007, you wonder how that money was accumulated in the first place.

It scares me to think that people will buy a business and rip it to shreds like in the movie “Wall Street”. There can be so much more to come from fixing up a place and then giving jobs to more people while still earning millions of dollars. People are lazy these days. They want a quick fix and move on to the next thing. It truly sickens me. A great analogy would be that banks and other individual companies are like guys in an office betting on a football game, who are other companies and peoples jobs. Those guys take their bets and throw in the dice. At the end, someone wins and someone loses. It’s just more often that everyone below the position of a CEO or President seems to lose. Funny how that works out?

"The anger at Wall Street only grew at the news that Merrill Lynch, after reporting $15 billion of losses, had rushed to pay $4 billion in bonuses on the eve of its merger with Bank of America." To me that’s such a waste. People are hiding money to pay other people and themselves while companies, families, individuals, cities, and the entire country falls apart. What a disappointment in American culture, and even more in Americans who actually say they are Americans. What a disgrace.

Week 5 - Bong Hits For Jesus

I completely agree with Professor of Law Steven B. Duke of Yale Law School. I truly believe that if we legalize marijuana that there would be a lot less violence and a whole lot more money to go around. If you look at the facts that he explained such as, “…Marijuana is a relatively safe drug. No one has ever died from a marijuana overdose nor has anyone gone on a violent rampage as a result of a marijuana high.” it just shows that at the very least, marijuana should be legalized. I am a believer in that if you smoke, drink, shoot up or anything else that deals with drug use, you will do it. People always do what they want, legally or not. So, we might as well make a profit from it. Also, we might as well help other countries and our own country by stopping all the gang wars and violence on our streets and in our homes.

This situation is not going to be over soon, and it is not going to end easily. But if we get off our white horses and stop looking at what is legal and not legal compared to what is right and what will be the best outcome, will only allow good to come from it. Just because something has been banned for such a long time does not mean that it was the right thing to do. This law has been in effect since 1933. If you look at slavery, it has been around for more than 5,000 years but we as human beings and Americans know it is bad to have slaves, then why can’t we look past this outdated law of illegal marijuana.

In the end, people of all ages, races, and backgrounds will continue smoking, quit smoking, start smoking, try it, hate it, love it, like it, or never even touch it. So, we need to stop being so blinded by our moral and ethical stupidity and start doing what will be the best for our country and for its people.

Week 4 - Crimes & Torts

Partners: Amanda Reed, Teri McNab, Holly Eager

Crimes

False Advertising
Bar Gambling
Lieing Under Oath
Speeding
Trespassing
Illegal Gun Use
Battery with a Vehicle
Battery with a Deadly Weapon
Corruption of Judge
Paid Witnesses
Leaving Scene of Accident
Stolen Vehicles/Goods
Attempted Murder
Assult
Kidnapping
Refrainment of Trade
Driving on Private Land
Failure to Stop at Construction
Failure to Pass Lawfully While Driving
Failure to Wear Seatbelt
Driving Without License
Crashing into Police Officer
Endangering the Public
Fraud

Torts

Sexual Harrassment
Distruction of Property
Trespassing
Leaving Scene of Accident
Attempted Murder
Assult
Kidnapping
Endangering the Public

Week 3 - Comments

I can definitely agree with some of the things that this person has said. For instance, I agree with the fact that there are worse laws in other countries and that the United States is definitely a sanctuary to a lot of people that are facing these horrible things in their everyday lives. I believe also that we can agree upon the fact that there are some outrageous state laws that are still in play. He also brings up the point about our economy and how certain laws that people push to get passed end up hurting us in the end. It is truly a shame. Even more shameful is the person who is getting these ridiculous laws passed is someone who obviously broke some type of law to get disbarred. Just because a person is a public figure or politician does not mean they are good people, and it does not mean, even more so, that they know what they are doing or talking about. It is absolutely ridiculous.

http://armamentscrolls.blogspot.com/2009/04/what-i-think-about-current-laws-in.html

There are a few things I agree and disagree with this person. As far as certain laws that need to be removed, I do not believe that any law that says you cannot do something such as “J walking” should be removed from our system. The reason being is that it endangers other people. I am a person who fully agrees with the fact that if you do something to yourself and cause only yourself harm and/or endangerment then that is your own problem. A good example of such laws is one he brought up. “Click it or Ticket” is the perfect example of a stupid idea. Now, I am all for people being safe and buckling their seatbelt, but if that person decides to not buckle up and they end up in an accident, then they are the only person getting harmed in the situation. I believe the only other way to cause any harm to anyone else would be if your body ends up hitting someone or damaging property. I know it sounds harsh, but it is the truth. Let people make their own mistakes.

http://efanimation.blogspot.com/2009/04/what-do-you-think-of-law.html

Week 2 - Thoughts of the Justice System

The justice system in America is completely messed up. If a lawyer makes a mistake with handling anything, he or she could either have their license, or whatever they call it, removed. Now, I understand that it’s their job to do something correct. If I messed up at my job I’d be in a lot of trouble as well. But I don’t agree with the fact that if a person was proven guilty, but someone messed up the paperwork that the entire case is thrown out and then the lawyers get attacked. People make mistakes, and I just do not believe that a small paperwork mistake could jeopardize everything that those lawyers have worked for to bring some kind of justice to light.

So, what else can I say about the justice system? Well, I do believe that there are a lot of laws that are somewhat backwards. I mean, there are still laws on the books that no one has ever taken off that are just completely ridiculous. For example, you cannot park your elephant in Miami Beach for more than thirty minutes or that you cannot serve apple pie without a slice of cheddar cheese in Wisconsin. I don’t understand how these laws are still in play. It’s absolutely ridiculous.

I do appreciate everything that the justice system does offer me. If of course this happened to me, I could sue a company because I was attacked by wild geese on their property. I could also sue a company for being electrocuted because I used their brand of blow dryer in the shower because it did not specifically say that I could not use it in the shower. America is great that way. You can sue for anything and a lawyer will back you up one hundred percent of the way.

Week 1 - What I think of Lawyers

I personally believe that there can be good and bad lawyers. Not just in the sense that a person is good or bad morally or ethically because that in general doesn’t even matter. What matters is how well they do their job. I do not believe that any lawyer can truly care about a person, even the good ones. The reason being is because a lawyer at the end of the day is just someone you pay. They are strangers and will never know you.

The only lawyer who would ever be truly good to a person in need is if they are family and not the backstabbing family either. Now there are the lawyers who strive to make this world just a wee bit better. They are few and far between; if you look hard enough you can run into one. They always want some money, and most likely more than what you can afford. But the good ones will help you out at the end of the day and bring justice to your little world. If the person who is in jeopardy and needs the lawyer is a good person in the first place that had some wrong doing towards them, then they will end up being able to find a good lawyer as well because good people have instincts. Let’s just hope the good person isn’t a moron though.

In any case, lawyers take oaths to do good, and most end up doing so because if they stay good in the eyes of the people that are hiring them, they’ll continue to have business. That’s the whole point anyways, if you have a good reputation you will continue to have people flock to you and be referenced to you. The bad lawyers though, well, they end up getting their comeuppance, whether that’s in this life or the next.