I am sure that many of you are familiar with the controversial and landmark court case of Row v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). This politically significant case still remains debatable today amongst abortion restrictions. The case was as follows:
Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life. After granting certiorari, the Court heard arguments twice. The first time, Roe's attorney -- Sarah Weddington -- could not locate the constitutional hook of her argument for Justice Potter Stewart. Her opponent -- Jay Floyd -- misfired from the start. Weddington sharpened her constitutional argument in the second round. Her new opponent -- Robert Flowers -- came under strong questioning from Justices Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall.
Conclusion: The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling.
Legal realism’s rational indeterminacy played a crucial role in the deciding verdict of this case. The judge interpreted the statutes of the state of Texas. Many fight the decision of this case (which is why it is still disputed today) and yet the moral factors of this case were never clearly stated.
Do you agree with Justice Rehnquist’s decision?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I completely agree with the decision by the court in this case. I've never been a very big fan of people trying to force their opinions upon others. It's one thing to debate, and another thing to order someone on what they're allowed to do with their own person. But that's just how I feel about all victimless crime.
ReplyDeleteAs far as this idea of rational indeterminacy is involved, I find this idea absolutely horrifying. The more I read and learn about legal realism, the more I find myself agreeing with it, and the more concerned I grow about our own court system. It just seems scary to me that this case could have gone in the completely different had there been a different judge presiding over it.
I would argue that the case is quite legally determinate. The case of Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479 (1965)) established a right to privacy, unenumerated in the Constitution but nonetheless protected under the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because there is (was) no positive law defining an unborn fetus as a person, there was no need to test the right to life of a fetus. All that had to be decided was that there was no overriding state interest. To me the only indeterminacy can come from that last decision regarding state interests.
ReplyDeleteIn my mind, the Griswold decision required much more interpretation.