Eugenics and the Supreme Court: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
='''History'''= | ='''History'''= | ||
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents ... The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." - Trial Judge for the Circuit Court of Caroline County, Virginia 1958 | "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents ... The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." | ||
: - '''Trial Judge for the Circuit Court of Caroline County, Virginia 1958''' | |||
Just like other factions of the United States, the Supreme Court can be just as influenced by particular ideologies and hatred. In the cases explored below and several others, the Court for various reasons has chosen to review cases that deal specifically with issues advocated by Eugenicists. We often think of the Supreme Court as this all-powerful, all-knowing body of individuals, who are impervious to sub par reasoning. This is not always the case. | Just like other factions of the United States, the Supreme Court can be just as influenced by particular ideologies and hatred. In the cases explored below and several others, the Court for various reasons has chosen to review cases that deal specifically with issues advocated by Eugenicists. We often think of the Supreme Court as this all-powerful, all-knowing body of individuals, who are impervious to sub par reasoning. This is not always the case. | ||
In the cases below, [[Loving v. Virginia]] was the only case where the Court did not side with the Eugenicist manner of thinking. In fact, the 1924 law allowing the sterilization of the mentally deficient is still in effect because the Supreme Court upheld its Constitutional legitimacy in [[Buck v. Bell]]. The case of [[Griswold v. Connecticut]] and its precedent-setting right to privacy has allowed for further Eugenics-minded cases, such as Roe v. Wade, which established the legality of abortion, and later Casey v. Planned Parenthood of Southwestern Pennsylvania, which removed the trimester requirement, easing the ability of a woman to abort a baby. | In the cases below, [[Loving v. Virginia]] was the only case where the Court did not side with the Eugenicist manner of thinking. In fact, the 1924 law allowing the sterilization of the mentally deficient is still in effect because the Supreme Court upheld its Constitutional legitimacy in [[Buck v. Bell]]. The case of [[Griswold v. Connecticut]] and its precedent-setting right to privacy has allowed for further Eugenics-minded cases, such as Roe v. Wade, which established the legality of abortion, and later Casey v. Planned Parenthood of Southwestern Pennsylvania, which removed the trimester requirement, easing the ability of a woman to abort a baby. | ||
What these cases show, with the exception of those racially based cases, is that the Courts have not been afraid to side with the eugenicists on particular matters. While often times citing ulterior reasons, the Courts have still maintained to uphold those thoughts and ideals of the early eugenics movement in the United States. | |||
='''Particular Cases of Interest:'''= | ='''Particular Cases of Interest:'''= | ||
| Line 19: | Line 23: | ||
[[The American Eugenics Movement]] | [[The American Eugenics Movement]] | ||
[http://www.oyez.org/ Supreme Court Media] | [http://www.oyez.org/ Supreme Court Media] | ||
Latest revision as of 06:13, 29 April 2009
History
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents ... The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
- - Trial Judge for the Circuit Court of Caroline County, Virginia 1958
Just like other factions of the United States, the Supreme Court can be just as influenced by particular ideologies and hatred. In the cases explored below and several others, the Court for various reasons has chosen to review cases that deal specifically with issues advocated by Eugenicists. We often think of the Supreme Court as this all-powerful, all-knowing body of individuals, who are impervious to sub par reasoning. This is not always the case.
In the cases below, Loving v. Virginia was the only case where the Court did not side with the Eugenicist manner of thinking. In fact, the 1924 law allowing the sterilization of the mentally deficient is still in effect because the Supreme Court upheld its Constitutional legitimacy in Buck v. Bell. The case of Griswold v. Connecticut and its precedent-setting right to privacy has allowed for further Eugenics-minded cases, such as Roe v. Wade, which established the legality of abortion, and later Casey v. Planned Parenthood of Southwestern Pennsylvania, which removed the trimester requirement, easing the ability of a woman to abort a baby.
What these cases show, with the exception of those racially based cases, is that the Courts have not been afraid to side with the eugenicists on particular matters. While often times citing ulterior reasons, the Courts have still maintained to uphold those thoughts and ideals of the early eugenics movement in the United States.
Particular Cases of Interest:
- Buck v. Bell: Sterilization of the Mentally Challenged
- Loving v. Virginia: Prohibition of Interracial Marriage
- Griswold v. Connecticut: Allowance of Contraception for Women
