2
Cheng
Xinnan Cheng
POLT 202 - 02
Prof. Kahn
Dec. 6, 2016
Prompt 6 (slippery slope)
Slippery Slope: Legitimate Reasoning of the Supreme Court The slippery slope is a metaphoric way to describe undesirable possible future as a consequence of today 's event. When the Supreme Court is dealing with a new implied fundamental right, the slippery slope argument was employed to state possible disastrous consequences due to the Court 's specific decision, more specifically, whether or not to recognize the new implied fundamental right. Some might view slippery slope argument as a fallacy, but it has been well and carefully used by the Supreme Court justices to support their arguments. Oftentimes, their goal is to defend the polity principle of …show more content…
It sounds like if the statue were not struck down, then the next morning Congress would pass a law to limit Supreme Court justices ' working time to four hours per day, thus corrupting the very foundation of US Constitution – the separation of power. Since Lochner v. New York (1905) decision was overturned in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), we can learn from the history that no horrifying law like the one I speculate has been adopted even decades later. In this case, the majority was indeed wrong about the slippery slope. However, in numerous other cases involving newly created implied fundamental rights, the employment of slippery slope argument involved accurate prediction. In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Justice Scalia wrote the dissenting opinion. He contended that "state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity" would come under question after the Court 's decision to overturn Bowers v. Hardwick (1986). Stone, Textbook, p. 928. He believed that these actions historically thought as immoral can be recognized as a fundamental liberty interest similar to sodomy in this case. Justice Scalia 's slippery slope argument included two parts, the first part is the fear that the Court would be involved in more moral choices, and another part is the fear that this case would be the base for the possible "judicial imposition of homosexual marriage" in the future. …show more content…
In Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003), both plaintiffs were convicted after the police observing them engaging in private, consensual sodomy inside their own bedrooms. We can see that the majority did not overstate about the slippery slope. Right to sexual privacy was helpful to the Court in reaching its decision to struck down the anti-sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas (2003). Slippery slope arguments, regardless of whether employed by the majority or the dissent, whether used for or against newly established implied fundamental rights, were oftentimes correct prediction of the future. We can see that the slippery slope arguments were not wholly arbitrary. On the contrary, the justices predicted in good faith with their best effort.
Slippery slope argument is not only employed because of the fear of a specific event, such as the Court legalizing same-sex marriage, but also because of the fear of damaging the Supreme Court 's polity principles. Slippery slope argument was used when the justices think that adoption or rejection of a new implied fundamental right can make the Supreme Court less principled as an
Cheng
Xinnan Cheng
POLT 202 - 02
Prof. Kahn
Dec. 6, 2016
Prompt 6 (slippery slope)
Slippery Slope: Legitimate Reasoning of the Supreme Court The slippery slope is a metaphoric way to describe undesirable possible future as a consequence of today 's event. When the Supreme Court is dealing with a new implied fundamental right, the slippery slope argument was employed to state possible disastrous consequences due to the Court 's specific decision, more specifically, whether or not to recognize the new implied fundamental right. Some might view slippery slope argument as a fallacy, but it has been well and carefully used by the Supreme Court justices to support their arguments. Oftentimes, their goal is to defend the polity principle of …show more content…
It sounds like if the statue were not struck down, then the next morning Congress would pass a law to limit Supreme Court justices ' working time to four hours per day, thus corrupting the very foundation of US Constitution – the separation of power. Since Lochner v. New York (1905) decision was overturned in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), we can learn from the history that no horrifying law like the one I speculate has been adopted even decades later. In this case, the majority was indeed wrong about the slippery slope. However, in numerous other cases involving newly created implied fundamental rights, the employment of slippery slope argument involved accurate prediction. In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Justice Scalia wrote the dissenting opinion. He contended that "state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity" would come under question after the Court 's decision to overturn Bowers v. Hardwick (1986). Stone, Textbook, p. 928. He believed that these actions historically thought as immoral can be recognized as a fundamental liberty interest similar to sodomy in this case. Justice Scalia 's slippery slope argument included two parts, the first part is the fear that the Court would be involved in more moral choices, and another part is the fear that this case would be the base for the possible "judicial imposition of homosexual marriage" in the future. …show more content…
In Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003), both plaintiffs were convicted after the police observing them engaging in private, consensual sodomy inside their own bedrooms. We can see that the majority did not overstate about the slippery slope. Right to sexual privacy was helpful to the Court in reaching its decision to struck down the anti-sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas (2003). Slippery slope arguments, regardless of whether employed by the majority or the dissent, whether used for or against newly established implied fundamental rights, were oftentimes correct prediction of the future. We can see that the slippery slope arguments were not wholly arbitrary. On the contrary, the justices predicted in good faith with their best effort.
Slippery slope argument is not only employed because of the fear of a specific event, such as the Court legalizing same-sex marriage, but also because of the fear of damaging the Supreme Court 's polity principles. Slippery slope argument was used when the justices think that adoption or rejection of a new implied fundamental right can make the Supreme Court less principled as an