The fact of the case was that the police were sent to Lawrence’s apartment to respond to a disturbance of weapon reported. When the police arrived, they found Lawrence in a sexual act with another man, Garner. They were charged under the law of Texas of deviating sex, with a person of the same sex named, as anal sex. They also challenged the court that the court did not take into consideration the Clause on Equal Protection. They were fined two hundred dollars and also an order to pay off one hundred and forty-one US dollars (Torges, 2005). The court of appeal considered the argument of the defendant under both clauses and after the hearing, they rejected the argument of the Constitution and reign forced the conviction. They held the view that
…show more content…
Scalia in his dissent, states that the court was of the opinion that the Clause of Due process does not declare as a constitutional or fundamental right. Furthermore, he states that there is nowhere in the standard review of the law of Texas that homosexuality to be appropriate or portray sodomy to be a fundamental right. The Court leaves untouched it is central conclusion when it overrules the outcome of Bowers. He also remarks that the decision to follow Bowers will have far-reaching implications beyond the case, as his conclusion was that the Bowers case was unheard of from of rational- basis (Torges, 2005)
Law mostly discovered not made; it found through experience if many generations. That is the concept in the above cases where the ruling and concepts of the Bowers v. Hardwick case are applied in the case of Lawrence against Texas. The concept brings about Evolution of statue, in that it brings new and more relevant laws. In most instances, the court may take to the ruling of a type previously made. In the cases above the court employ the principle of stare decisis when the Lawrence majority chose to apply the Bowers concepts. The stare decisis is a precedent doctrine, which a court apply when giving a ruling to a case and there is a decision on a previously ruled case. The concept enforces the common law in that if common law have been used in a case, the judges can keep referring to the
Scalia in his dissent, states that the court was of the opinion that the Clause of Due process does not declare as a constitutional or fundamental right. Furthermore, he states that there is nowhere in the standard review of the law of Texas that homosexuality to be appropriate or portray sodomy to be a fundamental right. The Court leaves untouched it is central conclusion when it overrules the outcome of Bowers. He also remarks that the decision to follow Bowers will have far-reaching implications beyond the case, as his conclusion was that the Bowers case was unheard of from of rational- basis (Torges, 2005)
Law mostly discovered not made; it found through experience if many generations. That is the concept in the above cases where the ruling and concepts of the Bowers v. Hardwick case are applied in the case of Lawrence against Texas. The concept brings about Evolution of statue, in that it brings new and more relevant laws. In most instances, the court may take to the ruling of a type previously made. In the cases above the court employ the principle of stare decisis when the Lawrence majority chose to apply the Bowers concepts. The stare decisis is a precedent doctrine, which a court apply when giving a ruling to a case and there is a decision on a previously ruled case. The concept enforces the common law in that if common law have been used in a case, the judges can keep referring to the