Supreme Court Meme

[mlerules]

Inspired by valeri0n

As was demonstrated in an interview with Katie Couric, Sarah Palin is unable to name any Supreme Court Case SHE DISAGREED WITH other than Roe v. Wade.

The Rules: Post info about ONE Supreme Court decision, modern or historic, to your LJ. (Any decision, as long as it's not Roe v. Wade.) For those who see this on your f-list, take the meme to your own LJ to spread the fun.

Plessy v. Ferguson (Separate But Equal = Legal)

Comments

[evilgerbil.livejournal.com]

Damn. I bet even my mom knows Brown v. Board of Education

[stacymckenna.livejournal.com]

that was the first one I came up with, too.

[damiana-swan.livejournal.com]

I do find it ... entertaining ... that she wasn't even familiar with Bush v. Gore.

Me, I like Lawrence v. Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas).

[mlerules.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that was one of the first that sprang to my mind, too.

[lorriet.livejournal.com]

Well, to be fair (and I hate to do it), she was asked to name a court decision that she disagreed with, other than Roe v. Wade...so it's not that she couldn't name ANY court case, but just not any that she could recall disagreeing with.

So, it's bad, but not as horrendous as it could be. :P

[mlerules.livejournal.com]

Thx for clarification.

[suddenlynaked.livejournal.com]

That's a fun meme! I know I must be a geek when I had to choose between Marbury v Madison and Griswold V Connecticut.

One of the things I find interesting is that Marbury V Madison had the court using the court to essentially establish it's power. No one obejected, but if my understanding is correct, Congress can indeed declare any law it so chooses outside the scope of judicial review.

If I'm wrong, I'd love to be corrected.

[cetawin.livejournal.com]

Marbury is not a geeky choice at all. Griswold was an important case in the matter of privacy rights...not a geeky choice at all. :)

[mlerules.livejournal.com]

From what I remember (and dang it's been a LONG-@ss time since I've looked into/studied this), MvM more STATED than ESTABLISHED this principle which'd been around for a long time (w/English precedents). And although I cannot off-hand cite authority for this, I do believe that Congress canNOT just declare any law it chooses outside the scope of judicial review, in large part b'c of the idea(l)(s) expressed by the fed'l judge just yesterday when ordering the release of a group of Chinese Muslims from Guantanamo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/07/AR2008100700466.html?nav=rss_print): ""Because the Constitution prohibits indefinite detention without cause, the government's continued detention of the [detainees] is unlawful," Urbina said. "Because separation-of-powers concerns do not trump the very principle upon which this nation was founded -- the unalienable right to liberty -- the court orders the government to release the [men] into the United States." Of course the Justice Dept's appealing this decision...worth keeping an eye on what happens, b'c this is HUGE separation of power stuff and so much of what's gone on the past eight (8) years has been an increase in the power of the executive branch (presidency) at the expense of...well, our liberties! Okay, not gonna rant more now.

[shysatyr.livejournal.com]

Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, No. 02-1624.

If I understand the ruling right, the Supreme Court actually dodged this decision, which supported the right for a public school in California to "compel" students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in publics schools, even though it included the term "under God", which does seem to violate the separation of church and state.

The Pledge of Allegiance as written in 1892 by Baptist minister and educator Francis Bellamy, who made no reference to religion in his version. It was originally worded: "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." It quickly became a part of public school programs.

Even that version went through to the Supreme Court in 1943, with a decision on behalf of Jehovah's Witnesses, that public schools may not compel students to recite the pledge.

In 1954, Congress added the words "under God," after pressure by the Knights of Columbus and other groups. Another modification was to change "my flag" to "the flag of the United States of America."

It all seems incredibly contrary to the First Amendment to me. It may be a minor point, but an important point none-the-less to me. It is the principle. They also modified an artist work without his consent, another blasphemy to me, like colorizing "Casablanca". Or am I being too nutty here...?

[mlerules.livejournal.com]

The French have a stronger system for stopping people from mucking 'bout w/artist's work than the U.S. does, but that's not really the point.

My mom talks about when "under God" was added when she was in school - NOBODY 'round there (staff, teachers, other students, parental units) liked it. It smacked of mixing Church and state WAY too much. When I was in high school I refused to say the pledge. Luckily I pretty quickly transferred to the forensics (speech and debate) homeroom where it really wasn't an issue.

[daeglan.livejournal.com]

Brown vs board of education,
Heller Vs. DC
Miller,

[cetawin.livejournal.com]

Immediately popped to mind that I agree with:

Miranda v. Arizona

Brown v Board of Education


One that I disagree with but which had an important outcome...


Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)


Synopsis:

In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permiting slavery in all of the country's territories.

The case before the court was that of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom.

Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression -- wrote in the Court's majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The framers of the Constitution, he wrote, believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."

Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ."

Abolitionists were incensed. Although disappointed, Frederick Douglass, found a bright side to the decision and announced, "my hopes were never brighter than now." For Douglass, the decision would bring slavery to the attention of the nation and was a step toward slavery's ultimate destruction.