Justice Stewarts Dissent in The Griswold Case Discussion Responses

Discussion 2: The Griswold Case. (Law)Read Justice Stewart’s dissent in the Griswold case
here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0381_0479_ZD1.html (L
inks to an external site.). Although he believes Connecticut’s law is “uncommonly silly,”
he nonetheless believes that it’s not unconstitutional. Do you think that judges have an
obligation to overturn “uncommonly silly” laws?
Discussion;
Please make sure to reply to at least two other students’ post.
1 student post
Yes, I do believe “uncommonly silly” laws should be overturned because every case that
come through are not worth the judges time at all. I feel if the case is not worth the time
of the judge or does not have necessary details, argument and even witness as well as
many other things the case should maybe reconsidered and if no probable reason as to
why the case should be granted another chance, then it should be overturned.
Reply ;
2 student
Yes, I do believe that judges have an obligation to overturn “uncommonly silly” laws. A
prime example of this is in Americus, Georgia there is a law that states no more than 5
women can live in the same house and be un-related as it would be considered a
brothel. This is absurd because most college student find roommates to help bring
down the cost of living. This is a law that should be overturned for being absolutely
ridiculous.
Reply ;