Blog #4

1. Roe v. Wade (1973)

• In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled abortions as legal, as long as the mother's health and life is not at risk or put in danger. Under this ruling, states were not allowed to ban or regulate first trimester abortions. During the second and third trimesters, states were only allowed to enact laws and regulations toward abortion to protect the life of the mother and life of the fetus. This case is one of the Supreme Court's most recognized cases.
• Judicial Philosophy: This was a case of judicial activism because the court was basically looking out for the well being of the people, and slashed a previous ruling that made abortions illegal. They did not stick too closely to the constitution, but looked at the case from a more adjusted point of view.
• Personally, I am and always have been pro-choice. I believe this is mostly due to my parents' initial beliefs that they had passed down to me, but I think women should be able to make their own decisions regarding their own bodies. Abortion is a serious decision, and it is up to no one but the woman affected what to do at that point in their life. Because every individual is under different circumstances and dealt different cards, I believe every woman should be able to make this choice according to their own lives and personal reasons.

2. Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

• In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that segregation in schools was unconstitutional as it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It canceled the ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson, which ruled separate but equal. This case was a major step in racial equality for America, and paved the way for many other civil rights movements.
• Judicial Philosophy: This was a case of judicial activism because it passed a ruling that improved the well being and rights of "colored" people by giving them a more fair chance of education. 
• I believe that this was such a major turning point in the civil rights movement. "Separate but equal" was never actually equal, and I believe that the court only initially ruled this as fair in Plessy v. Ferguson because it was such a common point of view back then that races should not mix in any aspect. But as always, the government had to adjust with changing times and realize that for the education to be truly equal, people should have been able to attend school wherever they wanted to. 

3. Mapp v. Ohio (1960)

• In Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that items found in an illegal search and seizure that violated the Fourth Amendment could ultimately not be used as legitimate evidence in criminal court cases. This stemmed from Mapp being convicted for possession of certain items, but she argued that the materials were obtained in an illegal search of her home without a proper warrant. 
• Judicial Philosophy: This was a case of judicial restraint because the court stuck to the basis of the Fourth Amendment, which protected citizens from improper search and seizure. This is basically what the whole case centered around and even though it is controversial the court stuck to the constitution which limited its power.
• In my opinion, I would have to disagree with this verdict. I believe that even though police officials should make every effort to obtain a warrant to be more prepared, illegal items are illegal items. If something is found that someone can be tried for, it does not make it any less illegal to have just because police found it without a warrant.