User:Atucd/sandbox

Background section: Adding on paragraphs at the beginning of this section, discussing the emergence of eugenics and how it developed through history and is relevant to Stump v. Sparkman

Eugenics was “with the intention of improving the quality of the human population by selecting for desirable traits, just as animal breeders would do for their livestock." It was introduced by “Adolf Hitler’s obsessive attempts to create a superior Aryan race” that launched lots of research to discover its accuracy, aiding it in becoming a longstanding scientific argument. As a founder of eugenics, Adolf Hitler “believed Germans should do everything possible, including genocide, to make sure their gene pool stayed pure”. Nazi's created the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring in 1933, in order to combat growing Jewish populations, but meant they forced thousands of Jewish people to be sterilized against their will, in harmful ways such as through injections or removal of organs. "Among those characteristics targeted for elimination from the human population were such complex and subjectively defined traits as "criminality," epilepsy, bipolar disorder, alcoholism, and "feeblemindedness," a catchall term used to describe varying degrees of mental retardation and learning disabilities." Hitler went so far as to hire Josef Mengele, a doctor in Auschwitz, who did horrific experiments on twins that included murder and torture. Mengele “used chemical eyedrops to try and create blue eyes, injected prisoners with devastating diseases and performed surgery without anesthesia” causing many of his patients to be severely disabled or die. The efforts made towards depleting all other races than Aryan made eugenics become controversial because it was altering the genetic makeup of society by only allowing certain individuals to reproduce, influencing a preferred outcome and thus interfering with normal human biology. There were many issues with eugenics and it directly translated into the progressive era, with the emergence of scientific solutions to help regulate undesirable traits from society.

In 1903, sterilization was developed in order to get rid of those negative traits that were valued as less than in order to focus on developing characteristics and rid new generations of illnesses thought to be retarded-ness, stupidity, anxiety, schizophrenia, skin color, etc. “Eugenics in America took a dark turn in the early 20th century, led by California. From 1909 to 1979, around 20,000 sterilizations occurred in California state mental institutions under the guise of protecting society from the offspring of people with mental illness”. Sterilization even occurred to minority groups in order to keep their race from having the ability to reproduce and continue to spread their cultural values. Eventually, “thirty-three states allow[ed] involuntary sterilization in whomever lawmakers deemed unworthy to procreate”. This shows the extent to which lawmakers and people in power would go in order to get rid of genes that they deemed unworthy to reproduce into society. People who were sterilized also included disabled people because the Supreme Court and lawmakers wanted to ensure citizens were in perfect shape, healthy, and similar in genetic makeup. Considering the past, "there are still many individuals yet today who support eugenic arguments against the decision to knowingly give birth to a child with a genetic disorder, cognitive impairment, or physical disability."

The case below: Rewriting the first two paragraphs to add all major points about judicial immunity and to add historical context and fix some sentence structures

District Court judge Jesse E. Eschbach dismissed the case by stating the only form of action necessary to the federal claims was Judge Stump’s act of trying to sue Ora Spitler McFarlin and approving the petition to do so. Judge Stump was “clothed in absolute judicial immunity”, and cut off any arguments back from defendants. "False judgments [are] redressed in the court of the lord immediately superior to the original court, and the appeal proceeded upwards through the ranks of the feudal courts”, so the case was appealed and taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals for which they reversed the dismissal.

Judicial immunity is the principle in which “a judge [has] complete protection from personal liability for exercising judicial functions”. The precedent case, Bradley v. Fisher involving a murder trial helped determine the difference between “excess jurisdiction and the clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject-matter, with judges subject to liability only in the latter instance” by saying that immunity is available only when a judge has jurisdiction over the subject-matter of a case. Thus, causing question as to what extent Judge Stump could intervene on the case. Although Indiana statute law permitted the sterilization of institutionalized persons under certain circumstances, it provided for the right to notice, the opportunity to defend and the right to appeal. Stump v. Sparkman “upheld the immunity of a judge who approved a petition from the mother of a 15-year-old girl to have the girl sterilized without her knowledge” while the Court decided that Judge Stump's attempt tp restrict the defending lawyers as such, violates the First Amendment. Causing more conflict regarding judicial power, a decision had been made and the 5 to 3 opinion, determining that “there was not the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction’ that is required to hold a judge civilly liable” helped the Court of Appeals come into an agreement that it was unethical to forcibly sterilize a child but Judge Stump was protected under judicial immunity for forcibly sterilizing a child behind their back at their mother's request. The Court of Appeals found no basis in statutory or common law for a court to order the sterilization of a minor child, simply upon parents request as well as Judge Stump’s actions were unable to be justified as a valid exercise of power to fashion new common law.