Talk:Bowers v. Hardwick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Cause of Arrest[edit]

I'm taking a Law class and my professor contends that Bowers was arrested due to unpaid parking tickets, not due to public drunkenness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sklausner (talkcontribs) 02:30, 16 March 2006

I've just read in Peter Irons "The Courage of Their Convictions" it was failure to appear in court for drinking in public.CLaplante —Preceding undated comment added 01:34, 19 April 2006

-- I was also curious about the cause of arrest issue. The Supreme Court case itself says nothing on the issue. I was hoping to get to the bottom of it, but the smell of bias in the initial fact pattern has me questioning this article's portrayal. While I have no knowledge one way or the other, at the very least it'd be nice to see a cite to support the fact pattern set forth in the article. Apc7a (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see some cites to the opening facts around the officer being at the house.Shark15994 (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Some Answers to the Above, Then "Aftermath" Section Problems
Suggested reading is the USSC cases from 1986. There is nothing like studying the opinions first hand. You will find all answers there. I'd like to post what I recall when I read this case in full, to see if it helps. Excuse my quick-and-easy layman terminology. The deputy was stated in the opinion to have been allowed entry into Hardwick's apartment by the landlady. It was for the purpose of serving papers. This is the time when said deputy caught Hardwick in flagrante delicto as it were.
As to the Aftermath section, I have to say it is very badly and unprofessionally written. This case was decided purely (by the majority) on the basis of homophobia--and the majority opinion states this clearly. There was no aftermath per se other than the people saying the USSC had declared homosexuals exempt from Constitutional protection of any kind. See Rhenquist's opinion for language even worse than the aftermath section. As for true aftermath, well, the ruling opened every homphobic door there was in this nation. Other enlightened nations laughed at us.75.21.102.18 (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

CLaplante, do you have a citation for that? The current citation for that sentence does not pan out, so I'm removing it. Helixer (hábleme) 15:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

overturn[edit]

I'm going to revert [1] because I believe that the overturn of this ruling is a central aspect of a contemporary neutral discussion of it, and therefore per WP:MOSBEGIN, it should be mentioned in the first paragraph. To avoid edit warring I won't revert again if it's re-removed, without first seeking further discussion here. But if someone decides to remove the info again, they should explain their reasoning. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see now, the version I reverted said "later overturned", and I mis-read the diff. I still prefer my version but the info is at least present in both. A phrasing that just said "overturned in 2003" would IMHO be fine if there's a way to make it flow. Sticking it into the previous existing wording just seems a bit awkward, so I've left in the added sentence explicitly mentioning Lawrence. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The details (Lawrence and 2003) are already mentioned later in the entry's summary and should not be mentioned twice in what is, after all, a summary of the body of the entry. And where the detail is provided later, there is much more detail, like 40+ words. Nor should the Lawrence decision be wikilinked twice. The fact that the decision was overturned is significant, I agree, and a heads-up to the reader is in order in the lede, but the detail is not significant at that point. I took your suggestion on phrasing. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Powell "incapacitated"?[edit]

This article claims that "an incapacitated Lewis Powell cast the deciding vote" in this case. That certainly doesn't sound like it's true the way our article currently reads. Who's wrong? --BDD (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

John and Mary Doe[edit]

"A heterosexual married couple was initially named in the suit as plaintiffs John and Mary Doe,[citation needed] alleging that they wished to engage in sodomy[citation needed] but were prevented from doing so by the Georgia anti-sodomy law.[citation needed] However, they failed to obtain standing[citation needed] and were dropped from the suit.[citation needed]"

If there is literally no proof for this information available, why is it still on the page? Does anyone have any source for this at all? 76.99.201.202 (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@76.99.201.202: It's in the opinion of the court, I have added a citation to the claim. You can read it yourself over on Cornell's website, just CTRL+F search for "Mary Doe" and it shows up. Respectfully, InsaneHacker (💬) 09:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bowers v. Hardwick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bowers v. Hardwick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)