former NFL star OJ Simpson charged with his ex-wife’s murder and again it was
his ex-wife’s murder and again it was
his ex-wife’s murder and again it was the trial of the century it’s the law of
the trial of the century it’s the law of
the trial of the century it’s the law of the land and the land where nothing is
the land and the land where nothing is
the land and the land where nothing is more important than the law but the
more important than the law but the
more important than the law but the debate over Bush v Gore goes on to this
debate over Bush v Gore goes on to this
debate over Bush v Gore goes on to this day not least among some of the justices
day not least among some of the justices
day not least among some of the justices themselves welcome to watchmojo.com and
themselves welcome to watchmojo.com and
themselves welcome to watchmojo.com and today we’re counting down our picks for
today we’re counting down our picks for
today we’re counting down our picks for the top ten court cases that changed
the top ten court cases that changed
the top ten court cases that changed America the Supreme Court in 1824
America the Supreme Court in 1824
America the Supreme Court in 1824 provided an answer within the framework
provided an answer within the framework
provided an answer within the framework of a case known as Gibbons versus Ogden
of a case known as Gibbons versus Ogden
of a case known as Gibbons versus Ogden or more simply the steamboat case for
or more simply the steamboat case for
or more simply the steamboat case for this list we’re looking at court rulings
this list we’re looking at court rulings
this list we’re looking at court rulings from the United States that had a
from the United States that had a
from the United States that had a significant historical impact in shaping
significant historical impact in shaping
significant historical impact in shaping the country that exists today now please
the country that exists today now please
the country that exists today now please take your seats Court is now in session
take your seats Court is now in session
take your seats Court is now in session Court has just ruled part of that law is
Court has just ruled part of that law is
Court has just ruled part of that law is unconstitutional this is being described
unconstitutional this is being described
unconstitutional this is being described immediately now is a big win for
immediately now is a big win for
immediately now is a big win for advocates of gay rights number ten Bush
advocates of gay rights number ten Bush
advocates of gay rights number ten Bush v Gore the last 80 years the Florida
v Gore the last 80 years the Florida
v Gore the last 80 years the Florida Court has always ruled that the right to
Court has always ruled that the right to
Court has always ruled that the right to participate in the democratic process is
participate in the democratic process is
participate in the democratic process is more important than a voter’s ability to
more important than a voter’s ability to
more important than a voter’s ability to follow instructions the 2000 u.s.
follow instructions the 2000 u.s.
follow instructions the 2000 u.s. presidential election resulted in one of
presidential election resulted in one of
presidential election resulted in one of the most controversial and divisive
the most controversial and divisive
the most controversial and divisive legal decisions in the nation’s history
legal decisions in the nation’s history
legal decisions in the nation’s history in Florida the vote was deemed too close
in Florida the vote was deemed too close
in Florida the vote was deemed too close to call and the Florida Supreme Court
to call and the Florida Supreme Court
to call and the Florida Supreme Court called for a recount but the United
called for a recount but the United
called for a recount but the United States Supreme Court overturned the
States Supreme Court overturned the
States Supreme Court overturned the order and cited in favor of george w
order and cited in favor of george w
order and cited in favor of george w bush effectively declaring him the next
bush effectively declaring him the next
bush effectively declaring him the next president which caused concern for many
president which caused concern for many
president which caused concern for many critics who believed the court had
critics who believed the court had
critics who believed the court had overstepped the standard is whether or
overstepped the standard is whether or
overstepped the standard is whether or not the intent of the voter is reflected
not the intent of the voter is reflected
not the intent of the voter is reflected by the ballot gore lost with grace but
by the ballot gore lost with grace but
by the ballot gore lost with grace but after the events of 9/11 and the war on
after the events of 9/11 and the war on
after the events of 9/11 and the war on terror many wondered what would have
terror many wondered what would have
terror many wondered what would have been in store for america had the court
been in store for america had the court
been in store for america had the court decided differently but the debate over
decided differently but the debate over
decided differently but the debate over Bush v Gore goes on to this day not
Bush v Gore goes on to this day not
Bush v Gore goes on to this day not least among some of the justices
least among some of the justices
least among some of the justices themselves number nine obergefell V
themselves number nine obergefell V
themselves number nine obergefell V Hodges now gay marriages back at the
Hodges now gay marriages back at the
Hodges now gay marriages back at the and this time it deals with if states
and this time it deals with if states
and this time it deals with if states have to recognize their legality while
have to recognize their legality while
have to recognize their legality while many countries around the world have
many countries around the world have
many countries around the world have embraced same-sex marriage for years
embraced same-sex marriage for years
embraced same-sex marriage for years it wasn’t until 2015 that the US Supreme
it wasn’t until 2015 that the US Supreme
it wasn’t until 2015 that the US Supreme Court legalized the right of people of
Court legalized the right of people of
Court legalized the right of people of the same sex to marry making it a
the same sex to marry making it a
the same sex to marry making it a fundamental one there was a glimmer of
fundamental one there was a glimmer of
fundamental one there was a glimmer of hope among the advocates for same-sex
hope among the advocates for same-sex
hope among the advocates for same-sex marriage under the law that Chief
marriage under the law that Chief
marriage under the law that Chief Justice Roberts might find his own path
Justice Roberts might find his own path
Justice Roberts might find his own path named after James obergefell a man who
named after James obergefell a man who
named after James obergefell a man who sought to have his marriage to another
sought to have his marriage to another
sought to have his marriage to another man recognized in Ohio the Supreme Court
man recognized in Ohio the Supreme Court
man recognized in Ohio the Supreme Court ruled in a five-to-four split that
ruled in a five-to-four split that
ruled in a five-to-four split that same-sex marriage was legal under the
same-sex marriage was legal under the
same-sex marriage was legal under the Constitution’s 14th amendment citing the
Constitution’s 14th amendment citing the
Constitution’s 14th amendment citing the amendments due process and equal
amendments due process and equal
amendments due process and equal protection clauses the case overturned
protection clauses the case overturned
protection clauses the case overturned the 1971 ruling against same-sex
the 1971 ruling against same-sex
the 1971 ruling against same-sex marriage in Baker V Nelson in 1970
marriage in Baker V Nelson in 1970
marriage in Baker V Nelson in 1970 they’d applied in Hennepin County but
they’d applied in Hennepin County but
they’d applied in Hennepin County but were turned down in a case that
were turned down in a case that
were turned down in a case that eventually went to the state Supreme
eventually went to the state Supreme
eventually went to the state Supreme Court where they lost number eight
Court where they lost number eight
Court where they lost number eight Marbury v Madison literally the last day
Marbury v Madison literally the last day
Marbury v Madison literally the last day of Adams presidency he was busy signing
of Adams presidency he was busy signing
of Adams presidency he was busy signing commissions for these federal judgeships
commissions for these federal judgeships
commissions for these federal judgeships this case was of vital importance to
this case was of vital importance to
this case was of vital importance to American history as it declared that the
American history as it declared that the
American history as it declared that the US Supreme Court had the authority to
US Supreme Court had the authority to
US Supreme Court had the authority to overturn laws made by Congress and
overturn laws made by Congress and
overturn laws made by Congress and perhaps more significantly awarded it
perhaps more significantly awarded it
perhaps more significantly awarded it the power to interpret and lay down the
the power to interpret and lay down the
the power to interpret and lay down the law the upshot of the case was that
law the upshot of the case was that
law the upshot of the case was that Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that
Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that
Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the court had the power to review uphold
the court had the power to review uphold
the court had the power to review uphold and strike down executive actions
and strike down executive actions
and strike down executive actions pursuant to the Judiciary Act of 1789
pursuant to the Judiciary Act of 1789
pursuant to the Judiciary Act of 1789 and in doing this to strike down part of
and in doing this to strike down part of
and in doing this to strike down part of that federal law in this case the court
that federal law in this case the court
that federal law in this case the court unanimously sided against Marbury who
unanimously sided against Marbury who
unanimously sided against Marbury who had brought forth a case petitioning for
had brought forth a case petitioning for
had brought forth a case petitioning for the court to force the Secretary of
the court to force the Secretary of
the court to force the Secretary of State to give him an appointed position
State to give him an appointed position
State to give him an appointed position that had been promised to him by the
that had been promised to him by the
that had been promised to him by the previous administration the decision
previous administration the decision
previous administration the decision stated that the law allowing the Supreme
stated that the law allowing the Supreme
stated that the law allowing the Supreme Court to do so was unconstitutional and
Court to do so was unconstitutional and
Court to do so was unconstitutional and therefore would not be honored
therefore would not be honored
therefore would not be honored president Jefferson won his battle
president Jefferson won his battle
president Jefferson won his battle against Marbury and his companions they
against Marbury and his companions they
against Marbury and his companions they never received their commissions Chief
never received their commissions Chief
never received their commissions Chief Justice John Marshall however won the
Justice John Marshall however won the
Justice John Marshall however won the war to establish the Supreme Court as
war to establish the Supreme Court as
war to establish the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of the meaning of the
the final arbiter of the meaning of the
the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution number 7 Citizens United v
Constitution number 7 Citizens United v
Constitution number 7 Citizens United v Federal Election Commission
Federal Election Commission
Federal Election Commission vote for this guy bunch of tired of this
vote for this guy bunch of tired of this
vote for this guy bunch of tired of this stuff acknowledging the disproportionate
stuff acknowledging the disproportionate
stuff acknowledging the disproportionate influence that corporate money can play
influence that corporate money can play
influence that corporate money can play in the outcome of political campaigns
in the outcome of political campaigns
in the outcome of political campaigns the US had sought to control what was
the US had sought to control what was
the US had sought to control what was termed electioneering communication the
termed electioneering communication the
termed electioneering communication the radical decision in Citizens United v
radical decision in Citizens United v
radical decision in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission reversed
Federal Election Commission reversed
Federal Election Commission reversed that trend leading up to the Democratic
that trend leading up to the Democratic
that trend leading up to the Democratic primaries in 2008 conservative lobbying
primaries in 2008 conservative lobbying
primaries in 2008 conservative lobbying group Citizens United wish to run and
group Citizens United wish to run and
group Citizens United wish to run and advertise a disparaging movie about
advertise a disparaging movie about
advertise a disparaging movie about Hillary Clinton we all know we’re going
Hillary Clinton we all know we’re going
Hillary Clinton we all know we’re going up against some pretty powerful forces
up against some pretty powerful forces
up against some pretty powerful forces that will say do and spend whatever it
that will say do and spend whatever it
that will say do and spend whatever it takes to stop me and stop you the
takes to stop me and stop you the
takes to stop me and stop you the Supreme Court decided they could with
Supreme Court decided they could with
Supreme Court decided they could with this decision the Supreme Court granted
this decision the Supreme Court granted
this decision the Supreme Court granted the same First Amendment rights to
the same First Amendment rights to
the same First Amendment rights to corporations and unions as to individual
corporations and unions as to individual
corporations and unions as to individual citizens the subsequent rise of super
citizens the subsequent rise of super
citizens the subsequent rise of super PACs has allowed wealthy corporations
PACs has allowed wealthy corporations
PACs has allowed wealthy corporations and individuals to attempt to influence
and individuals to attempt to influence
and individuals to attempt to influence elections in a manner that may have
elections in a manner that may have
elections in a manner that may have serious and far-reaching repercussions
serious and far-reaching repercussions
serious and far-reaching repercussions and after today’s ruling the
and after today’s ruling the
and after today’s ruling the corporation’s only need a few more years
corporation’s only need a few more years
corporation’s only need a few more years of inflaming people before the message
of inflaming people before the message
of inflaming people before the message suddenly shifts to everything’s great
suddenly shifts to everything’s great
suddenly shifts to everything’s great number six New York Times V Sullivan
number six New York Times V Sullivan
number six New York Times V Sullivan back in the 1960s the New York Times
back in the 1960s the New York Times
back in the 1960s the New York Times made a mistake effectively stating
made a mistake effectively stating
made a mistake effectively stating untrue facts about the police force of
untrue facts about the police force of
untrue facts about the police force of Montgomery Alabama in relation to Martin
Montgomery Alabama in relation to Martin
Montgomery Alabama in relation to Martin Luther King jr. and the southern United
Luther King jr. and the southern United
Luther King jr. and the southern United States civil rights movements an
States civil rights movements an
States civil rights movements an editorial writer named Grover Hall for
editorial writer named Grover Hall for
editorial writer named Grover Hall for the another Montgomery paper saw that
the another Montgomery paper saw that
the another Montgomery paper saw that and wrote an editorial where he called
and wrote an editorial where he called
and wrote an editorial where he called it lies lies and lies the police
it lies lies and lies the police
it lies lies and lies the police commissioner lb Sullivan sued them for
commissioner lb Sullivan sued them for
commissioner lb Sullivan sued them for libel a form of defamation however the
libel a form of defamation however the
libel a form of defamation however the court ruled in favor of the New York
court ruled in favor of the New York
court ruled in favor of the New York Times stating that a free press is
Times stating that a free press is
Times stating that a free press is necessary for a free country this case
necessary for a free country this case
necessary for a free country this case set the precedent that in order to be
set the precedent that in order to be
set the precedent that in order to be found guilty of defamation one must
found guilty of defamation one must
found guilty of defamation one must prove that there was an intention to
prove that there was an intention to
prove that there was an intention to harm known as malice number five Dred
harm known as malice number five Dred
harm known as malice number five Dred Scott v Sanford black race has for more
Scott v Sanford black race has for more
Scott v Sanford black race has for more than a century been regarded as beings
than a century been regarded as beings
than a century been regarded as beings of an inferior order
of an inferior order
of an inferior order they have no rights which the white man
they have no rights which the white man
they have no rights which the white man is bound to respect this is the story of
is bound to respect this is the story of
is bound to respect this is the story of Dred Scott an african-american slave who
Dred Scott an african-american slave who
Dred Scott an african-american slave who moved with his owner to a free territory
moved with his owner to a free territory
moved with his owner to a free territory after the death of his owner Scott was
after the death of his owner Scott was
after the death of his owner Scott was inherited by his former owners widow and
inherited by his former owners widow and
inherited by his former owners widow and he attempted unsuccessfully to purchase
he attempted unsuccessfully to purchase
he attempted unsuccessfully to purchase freedom for himself and his family he
freedom for himself and his family he
freedom for himself and his family he filed a lawsuit however stating that as
filed a lawsuit however stating that as
filed a lawsuit however stating that as he lived in a territory where slavery
he lived in a territory where slavery
he lived in a territory where slavery was outlawed he was entitled to his
was outlawed he was entitled to his
was outlawed he was entitled to his freedom they pointed to colonial laws in
freedom they pointed to colonial laws in
freedom they pointed to colonial laws in the text of the Declaration of
the text of the Declaration of
the text of the Declaration of Independence and constitution the 5th
Independence and constitution the 5th
Independence and constitution the 5th Amendment says that no one can be
Amendment says that no one can be
Amendment says that no one can be deprived of life liberty or property
deprived of life liberty or property
deprived of life liberty or property without due process the Supreme Court’s
without due process the Supreme Court’s
without due process the Supreme Court’s decision stated that all African
decision stated that all African
decision stated that all African Americans free or not were not
Americans free or not were not
Americans free or not were not considered American citizens and
considered American citizens and
considered American citizens and therefore had no right to bring about a
therefore had no right to bring about a
therefore had no right to bring about a lawsuit this decision is consistently
lawsuit this decision is consistently
lawsuit this decision is consistently listed among the worst in the history of
listed among the worst in the history of
listed among the worst in the history of the Supreme Court so essentially the
the Supreme Court so essentially the
the Supreme Court so essentially the procedural basis on which they lost was
procedural basis on which they lost was
procedural basis on which they lost was that they were citizens of nowhere
that they were citizens of nowhere
that they were citizens of nowhere number 4 United States v Nixon I’m
number 4 United States v Nixon I’m
number 4 United States v Nixon I’m saying that when the President does it
saying that when the President does it
saying that when the President does it that means it’s not illegal Nixon
that means it’s not illegal Nixon
that means it’s not illegal Nixon actually said that and the Supreme Court
actually said that and the Supreme Court
actually said that and the Supreme Court said I’ll just have to see about that
said I’ll just have to see about that
said I’ll just have to see about that the Watergate special prosecutor
the Watergate special prosecutor
the Watergate special prosecutor subpoenaed Nixon to hand over several
subpoenaed Nixon to hand over several
subpoenaed Nixon to hand over several documents as evidence specifically tapes
documents as evidence specifically tapes
documents as evidence specifically tapes he had recorded citing executive
he had recorded citing executive
he had recorded citing executive privilege Nixon refused the case went
privilege Nixon refused the case went
privilege Nixon refused the case went down in history as the Supreme Court
down in history as the Supreme Court
down in history as the Supreme Court placed clear and defined limits on how
placed clear and defined limits on how
placed clear and defined limits on how far the president could go with regards
far the president could go with regards
far the president could go with regards to executive privilege the case set the
to executive privilege the case set the
to executive privilege the case set the groundwork for what would ultimately end
groundwork for what would ultimately end
groundwork for what would ultimately end in Nixon’s resignation 16 days after the
in Nixon’s resignation 16 days after the
in Nixon’s resignation 16 days after the Court handed down its decision I shall
Court handed down its decision I shall
Court handed down its decision I shall resign the presidency effective at noon
resign the presidency effective at noon
resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow
tomorrow
tomorrow number three Miranda v Arizona go ahead
number three Miranda v Arizona go ahead
number three Miranda v Arizona go ahead it’s for declamatory sentences followed
it’s for declamatory sentences followed
it’s for declamatory sentences followed by a question for a total of 57 words
by a question for a total of 57 words
by a question for a total of 57 words okay uh it’s look it obviously starts
okay uh it’s look it obviously starts
okay uh it’s look it obviously starts with you have the right to remain silent
with you have the right to remain silent
with you have the right to remain silent I know you’ve heard this
I know you’ve heard this
I know you’ve heard this and then um it I think it sounds
and then um it I think it sounds
and then um it I think it sounds something like the famous Miranda rights
something like the famous Miranda rights
something like the famous Miranda rights are named after Ernesto Miranda who
are named after Ernesto Miranda who
are named after Ernesto Miranda who confessed under police questioning to a
confessed under police questioning to a
confessed under police questioning to a horrible crime however at no time had
horrible crime however at no time had
horrible crime however at no time had Miranda been informed of his right to
Miranda been informed of his right to
Miranda been informed of his right to remain silent
remain silent
remain silent and to have an attorney present it’s
and to have an attorney present it’s
and to have an attorney present it’s what days so obvious you can’t believe
what days so obvious you can’t believe
what days so obvious you can’t believe that was every time that we didn’t have
that was every time that we didn’t have
that was every time that we didn’t have it while the Arizona Supreme Court ruled
it while the Arizona Supreme Court ruled
it while the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that Miranda’s confession was admissible
that Miranda’s confession was admissible
that Miranda’s confession was admissible the US Supreme Court disagreed this not
the US Supreme Court disagreed this not
the US Supreme Court disagreed this not only set a valuable precedent but also
only set a valuable precedent but also
only set a valuable precedent but also gave countless cop shows the familiar
gave countless cop shows the familiar
gave countless cop shows the familiar phrase read him his rights his rights
phrase read him his rights his rights
phrase read him his rights his rights twice in terms of the rights of
twice in terms of the rights of
twice in terms of the rights of criminals Miranda v Arizona built on the
criminals Miranda v Arizona built on the
criminals Miranda v Arizona built on the earlier trial of Gideon B Wainwright
earlier trial of Gideon B Wainwright
earlier trial of Gideon B Wainwright which stated that all defendants had the
which stated that all defendants had the
which stated that all defendants had the right to legal counsel here is what we
right to legal counsel here is what we
right to legal counsel here is what we said an accused person cannot
said an accused person cannot
said an accused person cannot effectively defend himself without
effectively defend himself without
effectively defend himself without counsel the accuse cannot possibly
counsel the accuse cannot possibly
counsel the accuse cannot possibly evaluate the lawfulness of his arrest
evaluate the lawfulness of his arrest
evaluate the lawfulness of his arrest number two Brown V the Board of
number two Brown V the Board of
number two Brown V the Board of Education of Topeka the 1896 court case
Education of Topeka the 1896 court case
Education of Topeka the 1896 court case of Plessy v Ferguson was a troubling one
of Plessy v Ferguson was a troubling one
of Plessy v Ferguson was a troubling one as it was that case that declared
as it was that case that declared
as it was that case that declared separate but equal standards to be right
separate but equal standards to be right
separate but equal standards to be right effectively legalizing segregation in
effectively legalizing segregation in
effectively legalizing segregation in the United States
the United States
the United States the Plessy decision introduced a new
the Plessy decision introduced a new
the Plessy decision introduced a new phrase into the language
phrase into the language
phrase into the language separate-but-equal 21 states with soon
separate-but-equal 21 states with soon
separate-but-equal 21 states with soon passed segregation laws under the
passed segregation laws under the
passed segregation laws under the protection of Plessy it wasn’t until
protection of Plessy it wasn’t until
protection of Plessy it wasn’t until 1954 that several parents went to court
1954 that several parents went to court
1954 that several parents went to court again making the case that separate but
again making the case that separate but
again making the case that separate but equal was a myth and that
equal was a myth and that
equal was a myth and that african-americans were being treated as
african-americans were being treated as
african-americans were being treated as second-class citizens we conclude that
second-class citizens we conclude that
second-class citizens we conclude that in the field of public education the
in the field of public education the
in the field of public education the doctrine of separate but equal has no
doctrine of separate but equal has no
doctrine of separate but equal has no place the Court unanimously ruled in the
place the Court unanimously ruled in the
place the Court unanimously ruled in the parents favor stating that the Equal
parents favor stating that the Equal
parents favor stating that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment made separate but equal
Amendment made separate but equal
Amendment made separate but equal unconstitutional proving to be a
unconstitutional proving to be a
unconstitutional proving to be a landmark win in the history of the civil
landmark win in the history of the civil
landmark win in the history of the civil rights movement
rights movement
rights movement I felt so validated it was pure joy to
I felt so validated it was pure joy to
I felt so validated it was pure joy to go into that classroom for me I mattered
go into that classroom for me I mattered
go into that classroom for me I mattered before we rule on our top pick here are
before we rule on our top pick here are
before we rule on our top pick here are some honorable mentions the Planned
some honorable mentions the Planned
some honorable mentions the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut’s
Parenthood League of Connecticut’s
Parenthood League of Connecticut’s executive director Griswold and one of
executive director Griswold and one of
executive director Griswold and one of its doctors Buxton were arrested and
its doctors Buxton were arrested and
its doctors Buxton were arrested and charged under a Connecticut law that
charged under a Connecticut law that
charged under a Connecticut law that forbade the use of contraceptives by
forbade the use of contraceptives by
forbade the use of contraceptives by anyone including married couples let me
anyone including married couples let me
anyone including married couples let me join the others and once again saying
join the others and once again saying
join the others and once again saying that today is a milestone in the long
that today is a milestone in the long
that today is a milestone in the long struggle to protect our children from
struggle to protect our children from
struggle to protect our children from tobacco we’ve heard that we couldn’t
tobacco we’ve heard that we couldn’t
tobacco we’ve heard that we couldn’t survive before when we had 700,000
survive before when we had 700,000
survive before when we had 700,000 members and when we had 17 million
members and when we had 17 million
members and when we had 17 million members evolution was about to go on
members evolution was about to go on
members evolution was about to go on trial with an unusual cast of characters
trial with an unusual cast of characters
trial with an unusual cast of characters a group of civic boosters trying to put
a group of civic boosters trying to put
a group of civic boosters trying to put their little town on the map McCulloch
their little town on the map McCulloch
their little town on the map McCulloch versus Maryland entailed of necessity
versus Maryland entailed of necessity
versus Maryland entailed of necessity the question who is supreme the federal
the question who is supreme the federal
the question who is supreme the federal government or the government of the
government or the government of the
government or the government of the several states number one roe v– wade
several states number one roe v– wade
several states number one roe v– wade he actually researched the history of
he actually researched the history of
he actually researched the history of abortion and his visceral response was
abortion and his visceral response was
abortion and his visceral response was the state ought not to be telling
the state ought not to be telling
the state ought not to be telling doctors how to regulate pregnancy the
doctors how to regulate pregnancy the
doctors how to regulate pregnancy the Constitution is very clear on the laws
Constitution is very clear on the laws
Constitution is very clear on the laws of men but it’s somewhat hazy about
of men but it’s somewhat hazy about
of men but it’s somewhat hazy about women in the midst of feminism second
women in the midst of feminism second
women in the midst of feminism second wave many women sought to control their
wave many women sought to control their
wave many women sought to control their own bodies and futures by obtaining the
own bodies and futures by obtaining the
own bodies and futures by obtaining the right to seek an abortion the Supreme
right to seek an abortion the Supreme
right to seek an abortion the Supreme Court’s decision stated that it was a
Court’s decision stated that it was a
Court’s decision stated that it was a woman’s right to seek an abortion within
woman’s right to seek an abortion within
woman’s right to seek an abortion within the first trimester although second
the first trimester although second
the first trimester although second trimester abortions could be regulated
trimester abortions could be regulated
trimester abortions could be regulated and third trimester abortions could be
and third trimester abortions could be
and third trimester abortions could be banned by the state altogether citing
banned by the state altogether citing
banned by the state altogether citing clauses under both the ninth and the
clauses under both the ninth and the
clauses under both the ninth and the 14th amendments to the Constitution
14th amendments to the Constitution
14th amendments to the Constitution though these regulations have since
though these regulations have since
though these regulations have since evolved through other landmark cases but
evolved through other landmark cases but
evolved through other landmark cases but at the core of the case was whether or
at the core of the case was whether or
at the core of the case was whether or not they should overturn roe v wade the
not they should overturn roe v wade the
not they should overturn roe v wade the 1973 decision that legalized abortion
1973 decision that legalized abortion
1973 decision that legalized abortion and made a woman’s a woman’s
and made a woman’s a woman’s
and made a woman’s a woman’s reproductive choice as a fundamental
reproductive choice as a fundamental
reproductive choice as a fundamental right this milestone ruling has been the
right this milestone ruling has been the
right this milestone ruling has been the subject of intense debate and the issue
subject of intense debate and the issue
subject of intense debate and the issue continues to be contentious even in the
continues to be contentious even in the
continues to be contentious even in the 21st century my view is regardless of
21st century my view is regardless of
21st century my view is regardless of whether you think prohibiting abortion
whether you think prohibiting abortion
whether you think prohibiting abortion is good or whether you think prohibiting
is good or whether you think prohibiting
is good or whether you think prohibiting abortion is bad regardless of how you
abortion is bad regardless of how you
abortion is bad regardless of how you come out on that my only point is the
come out on that my only point is the
come out on that my only point is the Constitution does not say anything about
Constitution does not say anything about
Constitution does not say anything about it do you agree with our list
it do you agree with our list
it do you agree with our list what landmark cases did we miss for more
what landmark cases did we miss for more
what landmark cases did we miss for more top 10s about history and pop culture
top 10s about history and pop culture
top 10s about history and pop culture published every day be sure to subscribe
published every day be sure to subscribe
published every day be sure to subscribe to watchmojo.com leadership on this
to watchmojo.com leadership on this
to watchmojo.com leadership on this change
”
Be First to Comment