The chief dissenting opinion in this case quotes Oliver Wendell Holmes in saying "it is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV." A concurring opinion by Lewis Powell notes that the twenty-year sentence prescribed by the relevant law could raise Eighth Amendment issues, while a concurrence by Burger quotes William Blackstone. The majority opinion argued that the First Amendment rights enumerated in Stanley v. Georgia did not extend to the facts of the case, though the dissent of Blackmun noted Stanley's Fourth Amendment implications. The aforementioned majority opinion was wri
The chief dissenting opinion in this case quotes Oliver Wendell Holmes in saying "it is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV." A concurring opinion by Lewis Powell notes that the twenty-year sentence prescribed by the relevant law could raise Eighth Amendment issues, while a concurrence by Burger quotes William Blackstone. The majority opinion argued that the First Amendment rights enumerated in Stanley v. Georgia did not extend to the facts of the case, though the dissent of Blackmun noted Stanley's Fourth Amendment implications. The aforementioned majority opinion was written by Byron White. FTP, name this 1986 case which upheld the constitutionality of anti-sodomy laws, and was overturned by Lawrence v. Texas.
The chief dissenting opinion in this case quotes Oliver Wendell Holmes in saying "it is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that
{Bowers} v Hardwick (or {Hardwick} v Bowers)