Dynamic Court Viewpoints

viewpoints of the power of the court, The Dynamic and the Constrained Court. In the Dynamic Court, the court is viewed as the main arbiter of social change, were social reform can occur without the delay of other political institutions. For proponents of the Dynamic Court view, the landmark Supreme Court cases such as, Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade are viewed as some as some of the strongest pieces of evidence that the court is an exceptional tool for activists. But the inherent problem with Dynamic Court viewpoint is that a ruling does not necessarily lead to change. Though Brown v. Board ruled against school segregation, segregation persisted until the involvement of the federal government in the 1960s. Though Roe v. Wade ruled
Though traditionally the courts of the United States have abided by the conditions of the constrained court, the court was being quite instrumental in the advancement of marriage for same sex couples. With the exception of the Supreme court case Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986, there had been a general trend of the courts to serve as important implementers of social change for same sex marriage. Yet, the courts have not been able to figuratively strike the mortal blow to issue. Of the accomplishments won by activists in the court, many had been rulings that simply overturned laws forbidding same sex marriage. In order for there to be true social change, the courts would need rule that not only are same sex marriages legal, they must be held to the same standard of equality as heterosexual marriages. Though activists continue to hope that one day full marriage equality can become a reality, it is important to understand the previous cases that been brought forth in the courts
The origin was instead the supreme court case Griswold v. Connecticut. Griswold v. Connecticut was originally an appeal brought forth from Estelle Griswold and Dr. Buxton who, under a Connecticut statute that prohibited the use of drugs and medical instruments to prevent pregnancy. In a 7-2. The Supreme Court ruled that the Connecticut statue was unconstitutional because, although “The Association of people is not mentioned in the Constitution nor in the Bill of Rights” (Rossum and Tarr, pg.759), the penumbra of privacy could be constructed because several amendments, such as the fifth, deal with some aspect of privacy. Additionally, the statute was in infringement of the fourteenth amendment, I particular the due process clause. Though Griswold v Connecticut did set a precedence for privacy, it was not used in the one of the first high profile cases involving same sex rights, Bowers v. Hardwick (1986). Though one of the arguments of the plaintiff in the Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) was that a Georgia statute violated his rights because “his homosexual activity is a private and intimate association”, Justice White reasoned that due to a historical presence of anti sodomy laws in the United States, current laws should not be invalidated because they have a basis in state morality. Though Bowers v. Hardwick