I need help on my APA essay

We learned about common law tradition, which is reliance on past decisions, or precedent, to resolve legal ambiguity and ensure consistency across similar cases. Yet the intent of precedent to safeguard equity may be undermined by non- conscious psychological processes. Implications for Social Justice Together, this conglomeration of evidence indicates that precedent may function as much as a rhetorical device as an actual constraint on judicial behavior. Key examples demonstrate the power of precedent to protect landmark decisions from the whims of subsequent or lower court judges. At the same time, the current system enables signicant leeway forjudges to invoke or covertly evade precedent in ways that may protect justice but also perpetuate injustice. Instructions 0 Analyze and critically think about one of the U.S Supreme Court case (e.g. Tinker v Des Moines, Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education, Tennessee v. Gardner, Miranda v. Arizona, Mapp v. Ohio, Marbury v. Madison, Loving v. Virginia} to determine how precedent impacts legal protection and social justice {why or why not)? Briey explain the one of the cases? Is there fair treatment in all court cases (why or why not}? Should all convicts get the same sentence for the same charge? 0 A minimum of 300-500 words in length. Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) 2 The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees citizens the right to free speech, and this right extends to students in public schools. In the case of Tinker vs. Des Moines, 5 students were suspended for wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. The students had planned to wear black armbands to express their support of a truce; this was planned by a group of adults and students. When the administrative staff of the school became aware of this plan, they put a policy in place that would suspend anyone wearing the armband until it was removed. John F. Tinker, Mary-Beth Tinker, and Christopher Eckerdt all wore the armbands anyway and were suspended until they removed the armbands nearly half a month later. This sparked the landmark Supreme Court case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. Overview Of The Case On December 16 1965, a group of students from Des Moines, Iowa met at Christopher Eckhardt's home in order to plan a protest. During the meeting, the students planned to wear black armbands throughout the holiday season to show public support for a truce in the Vietnam War. The protest began with students Mary Beth and Christopher Eckhardt and as a result, they were sent home with suspension. On that day, the principal of the school got word of the planned protest and quickly established a policy that stated any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it. If they refused to do so, it would result in suspension. The following day John Tinker experienced the same result by wearing his armband as well. All three students were suspended from school until after New Year's Day, which was also the planned end of the protest. The students then took the case to court, stating that their First Amendment freedom of speech and Fourteenth Amendment due process clause were violated. A US. district court sided with the school, ruling that wearing armbands could disrupt learning. The students appealed the ruling to a US. Court of Appeals but lost and took their case to the United States Supreme Court. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 decision in favor of the students. The high court agreed that students' free rights should be protected and said, "Students don't shed their constitutional ghts at the schoolhouse gates." Discussion of the Court's Ruling: The Tinker case was a pivotal moment for First Amendment rights in schools. The Supreme Court's ruling in a 7-2 decision afrmed that students do not lose their constitutional rights when entering a school. According to the MTSU article, author Hudson Jr quotes, \"Justice Abe Fortas stated. "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate (Hudson Jr, 2009)\". This ruling protected the rights of students to express their opinions freely. even if their opinions were unpopular or controversial. Furthermore, Justice Fortas addressed the school district's argument that the armbands could cause a disturbance to the educational process. He stated, "In our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority's opinion may inspire fear" (LII (Legal Information Institute) ). Justice Fortas emphasized that the right to free speech should not be suppressed due to the mere possibility of disturbance. Furthermore, Justice Fortas addressed the school district's argument that the armbands could cause a disturbance to the educational process. In addition, this further supports the argument that the students' First Amendment rights should be protected, even if their opinions are unpopular or controversial. In Tinker v. Des Moines, anotherjustice who supported the students' rights to free speech under the First Amendment and due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment was Justice William 0. Douglas. Justice Douglas was known for his strong support of civil liberties and individual rights, which was reected in his concurring opinion in the Tinker case. In his concurring opinion, Justice Douglas emphasized the importance of protecting students' Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) 4 rights to express themselves in a peaceful manner. He stated: "The principal of the school testified that the reason for this decision to suspend the students was because he felt that the wearing of the armbands would distract students from their school work, that it might lead to a few of them making comments to the students wearing armbands, and that it might be offensive to some of the parents of other students" (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 1969). Justice Douglas went on to argue that the school's concern for potential disruption did not justify the suppression of students' constitutional rights: "In my view, the principal's testimony about the distraction of students and the possible offense to parents fall far short of furnishing the compelling state interest which the Fourteenth Amendment requires. It is, therefore, unnecessary for me to consider the impact of the school district's actions on First Amendment rights" (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 1969). Douglas further asserted that the students' peaceful protest should be protected under the Constitution: "The present case does not involve speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students. It involves the denial of fundamental rights of students to express their feelings on a matter of intense public concern in a peaceful and silent way" (\"linker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. 1969). This explains that the school can't punish the students because the black armband is rather a symbol of protest, than a disruption. In addition, the protest that the students were doing was in a peaceful and silent way. | | | | | 'I | | I | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | I | | I | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | I | | I | | | | r | I strongly agree with the court's ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines as it protected the students' First Amendment rights to free speech. As a fundamental right, free speech should be safeguarded for all individuals, including students in public schools. It was a landmark case that established that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." The Supreme Court's decision was particularly signicant Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) 5 as it recognized that students have the right to express themselves freely, even in a school setting. I believe that this is essential, as schools are where students should feel free to express themselves and their beliefs. The support from Justices Fortas and Douglas was particularly significant as it showed that the decision was not merely about free speech but also about fundamental constitutional rights. The court's decision also upheld the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process and equal protection under the law is another reason why I agree. The Des Moines School District's ban on armbands could have been seen as a violation of the students' privileges or immunities as citizens of the United States. The quote from Douglas was famous because he's explaining that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from making or enforcing laws that abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens without due process of law, or denying equal protection of the laws to any person within its jurisdiction. Therefore, the court's decision was not only based on free speech but also on the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution