Are you smarter than Palin? Name a supreme court case you don't like!

[Vesayen]

Are you better educated than a fifth grad.... er, Sarah Palin, who could not name a single supreme court case she disagreed with, besides Roe. v. Wade?

If you are not American, feel free to share a case from your own high courts, or even a controversial case from a lower court.

I'll start us off.

Dread Scott(slaves have no legal standing to sue and are not people) and plessy v ferguson(seperate but equal) are both really awful rulings but the single supreme court case I hate the most, is Korematsu v the Unites States.

Korematsu was a U.S. citizen of Japanese ethnicity who challenged being sent to a detetion camp in world war 2.

Why did I pick this one over an even other seemingly more unjust cases? Because the Supreme Court should have known better and DID know better. Slavery had been gone for many years, the constitution amended but as soon as we entered a real war, they rolled right over. They knew what they were doing was unconstitutional, they just did not have the balls to challenge the president. The Supreme Court frequently avoids issues of fact, letting lower courts decide issues of fact, here they decided and said that the Japanese-Americas on the west coast were actually a threat to national security, something they knew at the time was wrong. This case was an example of epic cowardice from the justices.

He lost the case in the end, they told him to report to a detention center, though the ruling was reversed in the 80s.

[Aeson]

Off the top of my head... no. I don't pay much attention to the cases (certainly not the names).

[Berzerker]

Palin was disappointed with a SCOTUS ruling that limited the liability of Exxon in her state. Why she couldn't remember that is another matter, maybe nerves. I can only think of 2-3 without going back to the civil war era and they're rather obscure cases.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad Company - the Gilded-Age court case that, along with the other suits included in the same decision, determined that corporations have the same rights as citizens. Not the worst decision in the court's history, but surely the worst decision to have a continuing role in American life.

Oh, and Bush vs. Gore, of course.

[Guynemer]

In recent memory, I thought the affirmative actions cases against the University of Michigan went in exactly the wrong direction in both cases. The Law School's AA was upheld, while the undergrad's program was thrown out.


You know, I think McCain had the right idea; picking a female running mate could have swung Hillary voters. Snowe, Collins, Hutchinson, Whitman... all of those women have been on the national stage for well over a decade. The problem is that they are all pro-choice, which would be a non-starter for the Republican base. Of course, by picking someone stidently pro-life, he blew his opportunity to pick up the Hillary crowd. Dumb, dumb choice.

[Elok]

Um, I remember Betts v. Brady denied PDs for cases under a certain level of gravity. I guess I disagree with that. It was overturned decades ago, but I disagree with that. And Bush v. Gore, mostly because I didn't like the outcome. I have no knowledge of the rationale used.

So no, I'm not much smarter than Palin in terms of ignorance. But I'm not running for public office, which shows that I am much smarter than Palin in the ways that count.

[gwillybj]

Originally posted by Elok
... Bush v. Gore, ... the rationale used...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

is a copy of the ruling:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., PETITIONERS v.
ALBERT GORE, Jr., et al.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

[December 12, 2000]

[Darius871]

No Marbury v. Madison yet? Ok there, I said it.

That would have been a good answer for Palin too come to think of it, since it would have effectively mooted all subsequent cases.

[asleepathewheel]

I wonder if it would have been easier for her to name a case she liked, or if she is just completely ignorant on such things.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
I wonder if it would have been easier for her to name a case she liked, or if she is just completely ignorant on such things.

If it makes you feel any better Fox gave her a do over on that question and she answered it cohearently this time.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
I wonder if it would have been easier for her to name a case she liked, or if she is just completely ignorant on such things.

Most likely the latter. Even if she doesn't keep up on modern jurisprudence, which I don't expect of any politician, even most uninformed goons have at least heard of "Roe v. Wade" and know what it stands for. Considering she's pro-life, wouldn't that have been an easy answer? Who the hell hasn't heard of Roe that isn't living in a cave?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
If it makes you feel any better Fox gave her a do over on that question and she answered it cohearently this time.

I'd rather operate under the illusion that she already knows these things without coaching from her team, but its great that she was subsequently fed this information. I myself frequently crammed before tests, so I can't be too critical I suppose.

[Elok]

Originally posted by gwillybj

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

is a copy of the ruling:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., PETITIONERS v.
ALBERT GORE, Jr., et al.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

[December 12, 2000]

Thank you, but I don't decipher legalese too well either. I think I'd be unhappy with any verdict other than "scrap the damned Electoral College already." No, wait, I'd be unhappy with that too, since such a statement is far outside the SCOTUS's authority. Oh well.

[Alinestra Covelia]

I don't like Roe v. Wade.

I support the outcome - namely, that a woman can be allowed significant leeway to choose to have an abortion.

But the logic behind the opinion is pretty fuzzy, and the opinion itself really needed to be much stronger in order to survive repeated challenges.

Right now one way to interpret the opinion, based on a literal reading, is that the moment that a fetus could survive outside the body, it's legally a "person" with all the rights that entails.

So... once science evolves to the point where a newly fertilized egg could survive in some equipment outside of the body, no woman can ever have an abortion?


Not one of SCOTUS' best opinions.

In my opinion.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia


So... once science evolves to the point where a newly fertilized egg could survive in some equipment outside of the body, no woman can ever have an abortion?

After that I don't see a need for abortion, got an unwanted day old fetus? Just put it up for adoption.