Loving v. Virginia

Background
An Interracial couple married outside of Virginia before shortly moving to Virginia. they then violated a bill that banned interracial marriage within the state of Virginia.
Issue
Is a law prohibiting interracial marriage a violation of the 14th amendment's equal protection clause?
Decision
It is indeed a violation of the 14th.
Majority: Clark, Warren, Black, Douglas, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart, White, Fortas
My Opinion
The law is most certainly in violation of the 14th amendment. According to the equal protection clause, "no state shall... deny to any person with its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law".  This mean that all laws shall be applied and enforced equally to all citizens of the United States. Therefore, this bill is, which only applies to certain people, must be tested with strict scrutiny. Upon review, there is no reason the state can present that allows this law to be seen as necessary "to a compelling end".

Gonzales v. Carhart

Background

In 2003 the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban  Act was signed, passed, and enforced. The bill would deem would ban any partial birth abortions which was defined as an abortion where the fetus died while “the entire fetal head [...] or [...] any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother.

Issues

Does banning late term abortions cause an “undue burden” and therefore should be unconstitutional?

Decision

No, banning late term abortions is not unconstitutional.

Majority: Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito

Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer

My Opinion

I agree with the justices’ decision. This bill does not cause “undue burden” upon a women seeking an abortion. It does not violate the privacy of a women due to the ability to have gotten an abortion earlier in the pregnancy, and is therefore constitutional.

Atkins v. Vriginia

Background 
Atkins was accused and put on trial for armed robbery, kidnapping, and murder. Upon being tested, a forensic psychologist testified in court that Atkins was mildly mentally disabled.

Issue
Is the death penalty for the mentally disabled a violation of the 8th amendments prohibition of "cruel and unusual" punishment?

Decision
The execution of the mentally disabled is considered "cruel and unusual" and does therefore violate the 8th amendment.
Majority: Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, O'Connor
Dissent: Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas

My Opinion
I agree that executing the mentally ill is a violation of the 8th amendments prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. According to one of the prongs when determining if a punishment is "cruel and unusual", the punishment must not be "clearly and totally rejected throughout society". This death sentence for the mentally ill, was unprecedented in the United States, and therefore, a lack thereof of such a punishment should be evidence that it is rejected through society.

Kennedy v. LA

Background
Kennedy was convicted of raping his step-daughter at the age of eight. He was sentenced to death but appealed the ruling saying that the age of the child should not matter.

Issue
Does putting somebody to death for child-rape violate the defendant's 8th amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment? 

Decision
It does indeed violate the defendant's eighth amendment right if the rape did not intend to kill and did not result in killing the child.
Majority - Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent - Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito

My Opinion
Based upon the precedents set in Atkins v. Virginia and Roper v. Simmons, I agree that he should not receive the death penalty. There is an evolving standard of decency set forth when referring to the death penalty. At the time, only five states had imposed the death penalty on convicts guilty of child rape. Therefore, five states does not constitute a national consensus and he should not receive the death penalty.