Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

This case was basically about affirmative action in schools, and how a white student was mad that a colored student got into the school with lower grades while the white student was rejected.

The court ruled that while the school's policy was in violation of the law, they would not order the student to be admitted.

I think this is an interesting case because whites are typically very privileged and do not know the struggles of colored people. However the school's equal opportunity clause was based on race, which is discrimination; instead it should be based on income, and whether the student is going to be the first in their family to go to college. I would not mind giving up my spot at a school for a colored student because I know my place in society as a higher-class white kid, and I have not had to deal with economic hardship or indirect discrimination.

Miller v. California - Mass-Mailed Pornography Unchill

In this case, a man had sent out large-volume mailings to recipients who never wanted them, advertising adult books and films. He was arrested under California's obscenity laws, but appealed saying that his first-amendment rights to freedom of speech and press were violated. The court ruled, with influence from previous decisions, that "states have a legitimate interest in prohibiting dissemination or exhibition of obscene material," under some circumstances. The court also established guidelines for cases like this in the future.

My initial thought was that this court action was inappropriate, because in a way it is suppressing freedom. But then we think of something as rudimentary as murder, and we think that maybe people kill other people to feel alive, because they don't feel free. When we ask why we aren't allowed to kill others, it's because of common sense guidelines that were made laws long ago. Maybe laws against murder are suppressing freedom, but it is for good reason, as it is in this case. At first I thought I wouldn't care if I occasionally got pornographic advertisements in the mail, because I'd just recycle them anyway. But then I remembered how disgusted I feel every time I see a sexual TV ad, and realized I would probably be just as disgusted to receive things of the like in my mailbox. Sex is great for manipulating masses into buying products or services; since it is a primal instinct it is subconscious to be more partial to things that allude to us fulfilling this need. It should be below us by now, so I feel that this law helps society progress. If only they could take sexual marketing off the air.

Plessy v. Ferguson - Justified Segregation

In Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, a man who was 1/8 black sat in the white section of a train. He refused to move, and he was arrested. He appealed and got the court to the US Supreme Court, which ruled that "equal but separate accommodations" were allowed. The judge said the law that Plessy was challenging was valid and did not imply that either race was inferior to the other.

The one dissenting judge brought up the ignored intent of the law to keep colored people out of white people's space, which is not equality at all. I believe this was a horrible court decision because they were just justifying their own racism while brushing aside the huge issue of their own racist tradition. The judge rejected that "social prejudices may be overcome by legislation," and that "if one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them on the same plane." This was just an excuse for being racist. The Thirteenth Amendment outlawed slavery, which made many people upset, but definitely was a win for colored people, who were no longer inferior as slaves. They weren't socially accepted as whites, of course, because people are stubborn and believe what they want, but this would be fixed in time. In this case, the justices did not live up to their titles in the least.

Luckily, this decision was later overturned in Brown v. Board of Education.

U.S. v. Nixon - Was it okay to demand the tapes?

In this case, Nixon was involved in a scandal because his Committee to Reelect the President broke into the Democratic National Committee's headquarters and stole some documents. This committee was believed to have orders from Nixon to do so, so an investigation was launched. During the investigation, it was found that Nixon had recorded a lot of the conversations he had in the Oval Office, which could turn up some evidence for the case. When asked for the tapes, Nixon refused to give them, claiming executive privilege, which basically means that since he was the president, he could do what he wants. The Supreme Court ordered them, and when Nixon finally gave them over, a lot of tape was missing, and some was erased. In this case, executive privilege was not respected, and it turned out to be for a good reason.The court said that executive privilege would have made sense if it was a claim to protect "military, diplomatic or sensitive national security secrets..."

The tapes indicated some secrets that Nixon did not want leaked, and that the public certainly did not like. I think this was the right choice because while some White House documents and policies should be kept secret, if there is enough reason to believe something is being violated, there should be an investigation, and if something turns up, it should be made public.

Roe v. Wade - The Right to Live

This is one my favorite cases, because I believe in equality and support equal rights strongly. It is clearly unjust for the government to impose rules on a woman's body, as she is the one having a child, and should have the final say in whether she should go through with the pregnancy or not. Scientifically, a fetus is not a citizen, as it has not been born yet, and since a fetus does not fit the description of an American citizen, they do not deserve citizens' rights. I believe this to a certain point. The heart starts beating and the part of the brain that operates consciousness form after four weeks. I believe these are essential parts of being indicated a human. After that time period, I think there will be conditions and that each case should be considered individually given the circumstances.

I believe that the Constitution was upheld in that a non-human was not treated as a human.