Supreme Court Do-Ovah

[The Professor]

There are more than just one and it is difficult to prioritize. Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005) would be high on the list.

The Interstate Commerce Clause gave congress the right “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes..” Sadly the Supreme Court has redefined the plain language of the Constitution to include the Governments ability to regulate not only interstate commerce, which is the flow of goods between the states, but anything that effects interstate commerce. The Court has even regulated that which is purely intrastate commerce under the insane theory that those who grow thing for use within their state affect interstate commerce because their customers could have purchased the product from an out-of-state source instead. The most laughable decision was when the Court used the Interstate Commerce Clause against two women who grew marijuana in California for their own personal use. Not only was there no interstate commerce, there was no commerce of any kind! However, the Court ruled that the woman could have purchased their marijuana out of state which somehow affected interstate commerce. The Supreme Court failed to note that such purchases would have been illegal.


The word “Supreme” in the United States Supreme Court obviously refers to power and not to intelligence, common sense or morality.

 

[mdk]

Korematsu v. United States

An utterly disgraceful decision.

There were lots of disgraceful decisions but that one has limited relevance today. Something like Brown v Board of Ed or Roe is more relevant because it set really bad precedents. Wickard was, imo, the most harmful.

Wickard was a gross expansion of The Commerce Clause. This is do not argue.

Wait...what? Brown set a bad precedent? In what way?

It took what should be state issues from control of the states.

When states willfully trample the rights of it's citizens then the courts should rectify it when a case is argued before them. They don't always get it right but in the case of Brown they got it spot on.

They did not willfully trample the rights of citizens. that was the whole point. States have the right to determine educational policies. And marriage policies. With Brown all of that went away.

Those poor states couldn't treat their black students like shit anymore. My heart just weeps.

 

[HenryBHough]

The New London case in which the court effectively outlawed private property.

 

[Darkwind]

If Maybury v Madison never happened, none of those ruling you people are discussing would have happened.

The SCOTUS was never chartered to be the arbiter of the Constitution...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Kelo is likely the most misunderstood ruling in the last 25 years – all myth, no substance, its vilification completely unwarranted.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Marbury v Madison...

The most misunderstood ruling ever – its vilification also completely unwarranted.

In Marbury the Court recognized and reaffirmed the long-standing and accepted doctrine of judicial review practiced during the Foundation Era and for over one hundred years in Colonial courts before that, authorized by the Constitution in Articles III and VI; the notion that the Court 'invented' judicial review with the ruling is completely unfounded.

 

[Darkwind]

Marbury v Madison...

The most misunderstood ruling ever – its vilification also completely unwarranted.

In Marbury the Court recognized and reaffirmed the long-standing and accepted doctrine of judicial review practiced during the Foundation Era and for over one hundred years in Colonial courts before that, authorized by the Constitution in Articles III and VI; the notion that the Court 'invented' judicial review with the ruling is completely unfounded.

The official line by the power hungry....your masters would be pleased.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Citizens United is likewise a misunderstood ruling – as the Court said nothing about 'corporate personhood.'

It is neither the role nor responsibility of the Court to 'fix' various political problems, in this case the undue influence money has in elections. Nor did the Citizens United Court 'approve' of the undue influence money has in elections, or seek to 'prohibit' campaign finance reform.

The Court's role is to determine the constitutionality of Federal, state, and local measures; citizens are at liberty to address the need for campaign finance reform – likely with the Court's blessing – but citizens may not violate the First Amendment to realize that goal, no matter how warranted or justified.

 

[2aguy]

Korematsu v. United States

An utterly disgraceful decision.

There were lots of disgraceful decisions but that one has limited relevance today. Something like Brown v Board of Ed or Roe is more relevant because it set really bad precedents. Wickard was, imo, the most harmful.

Roe....millions of lives saved.....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The New London case in which the court effectively outlawed private property.

And here's an example of the ignorance of the Kelo decision common to most on the right.

Again, Kelo is among the more misunderstood of recent Court cases. The actual meaning of the ruling was lost as both liberals and conservatives contrived their own meanings to serve their respective political agendas.

The case had nothing to do with 'outlawing private property,' or the ‘little people’ at odds with ‘evil corporate monsters.’ At issue only was the definition of ‘public use,’ and if the City’s development plan met the public use requirement. Indeed, Ms. Kelo was requesting the Court make her case an exception to the established definition.

From the Kelo ruling:

'[T]his is not a case in which the City is planning to open the condemned land--at least not in its entirety--to use by the general public. Nor will the private lessees of the land in any sense be required to operate like common carriers, making their services available to all comers. But although such a projected use would be sufficient to satisfy the public use requirement, this "Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public." Id., at 244. Indeed, while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed "use by the public" as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the "use by the public" test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?),7 but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society.8 Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose." See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 158-164 (1896). Thus, in a case upholding a mining company's use of an aerial bucket line to transport ore over property it did not own, Justice Holmes' opinion for the Court stressed "the inadequacy of use by the general public as a universal test." Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co., 200 U. S. 527, 531 (1906).9 We have repeatedly and consistently rejected that narrow test ever since.'

The majority, therefore, merely followed the precedent established in Fallbrook and rejected the petitioners’ argument for a literal requirement. The petitioners could just as well have been a multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporation subject to the same eminent domain taking.

Consequently:

'The disposition of this case therefore turns on the question whether the City's development plan serves a "public purpose." Without exception, our cases have defined that concept broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field. ibid

So again, the Court acknowledges precedent and accedes to the local jurisdiction’s definition of a public purpose.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If Maybury v Madison never happened, none of those ruling you people are discussing would have happened.

The SCOTUS was never chartered to be the arbiter of the Constitution...

Incorrect.

'[A]s Chief Justice Marshall acknowledged in Marbury, “long and well established” principles answered “the question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land.” Marshall concluded that “a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts . . . are bound by that instrument.” As such, contrary to the traditional account of Marbury, Marshall’s decision did not conjure judicial review out of thin air, but rather affirmed the well-established and long-practiced idea of limited legislative authority in the new context of the federal republic of the United States. In doing so, Marshall recommitted American constitutional law to a practice over four centuries old.'

The Yale Law Journal - Forum Why We Have Judicial Review

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kelo v. City of New London or Citizens United

Brown and Marbury were clearly within the jurisdiction of SCOTUS.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Korematsu v. United States

An utterly disgraceful decision.

There were lots of disgraceful decisions but that one has limited relevance today. Something like Brown v Board of Ed or Roe is more relevant because it set really bad precedents. Wickard was, imo, the most harmful.

Roe....millions of lives saved.....

More ridiculous ignorance from the right.

As with Citizens United, it was neither the role nor responsibility of the Roe Court to 'solve' the problem of abortion, only to rule on the constitutionality of measures seeking to deny women their right to privacy.

Indeed, Roe was the progeny of Griswold and Eisenstadt, both acknowledging the fundamental right to privacy, the right to decide whether to have a child or not without unwarranted interference by the state, prohibiting the state from compelling a woman to have a child against her will, and safeguarding individual liberty by restricting the size and authority of government.

The Roe Court did not 'authorize' abortion, it did not 'approve' abortion, it merely required those opposed to abortion to seek a means to end the practice that comported with the Constitution and its case law.

In fact, absent Roe, abortion would have continued, in states where the practice was either legal or illegal.

 

[HenryBHough]

The fun part of the New London supreme court attack on property rights is that the company the city took the old lady's home to hand over to a builder never did put two sticks together. Let alone put up a tax-producing building.

Left CNL with a vacant lot worth jack-shit for tax purposes, less revenue than before and scared off countless who might have considered buying of building there.

 

[mdk]

The fun part of the New London supreme court attack on property rights is that the company the city took the old lady's home to hand over to a builder never did put two sticks together. Let alone put up a tax-producing building.

Left CNL with a vacant lot worth jack-shit for tax purposes, less revenue than before and scared off countless who might have considered buying of building there.

My city tried that bullshit back in the mid-90's and the public outcry was so harsh the plan was scrapped and cost the mayor his job.

 

[FA_Q2]

Wickard v Filburn, the "wheat care." Made a massive expansion and intrusion of the federal gov't into state business. I would take aim at that before anything else.

Funny because that is the very first case that popped into my head. It defined the commerce clause to mean anything that the government wanted it to mean. EVERYTHING affects commerce in one way or another.

This is one of the most egregious expansions of government I can think of.

The other that popped into my mind was South Dakota v. Dole. That decision utterly ended states rights as the federal government gained the ability to extort them.

There are more than just one and it is difficult to prioritize. Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005) would be high on the list.

That case, however, is based upon the precedent already created in the case rabbi pointed out.

If you really wanted to change the precedent, you would change the original case that created it.

 

[FA_Q2]

If Maybury v Madison never happened, none of those ruling you people are discussing would have happened.

The SCOTUS was never chartered to be the arbiter of the Constitution...

bah.

Just eliminate the SCOTUS then.

What possible purpose can the SCOTUS have if it is not supposed to exercise judicial review. That is simply silly.

 

[FA_Q2]

Korematsu v. United States

An utterly disgraceful decision.

?

And a really silly one to redress considering that has essentially already been done.

The case has zero bearing on current law and would never pass muster again. It is disgraceful, yes, but in the past.

 

[FA_Q2]

Citizens United is likewise a misunderstood ruling – as the Court said nothing about 'corporate personhood.'

It is neither the role nor responsibility of the Court to 'fix' various political problems, in this case the undue influence money has in elections. Nor did the Citizens United Court 'approve' of the undue influence money has in elections, or seek to 'prohibit' campaign finance reform.

The Court's role is to determine the constitutionality of Federal, state, and local measures; citizens are at liberty to address the need for campaign finance reform – likely with the Court's blessing – but citizens may not violate the First Amendment to realize that goal, no matter how warranted or justified.

Oh shit - I agree with clay on something.....
lol.

Citizens United is likewise a misunderstood ruling – as the Court said nothing about 'corporate personhood.'

It is neither the role nor responsibility of the Court to 'fix' various political problems, in this case the undue influence money has in elections. Nor did the Citizens United Court 'approve' of the undue influence money has in elections, or seek to 'prohibit' campaign finance reform.

The Court's role is to determine the constitutionality of Federal, state, and local measures; citizens are at liberty to address the need for campaign finance reform – likely with the Court's blessing – but citizens may not violate the First Amendment to realize that goal, no matter how warranted or justified.

Oh shit - I agree with clay on something.....
lol.

The New London case in which the court effectively outlawed private property.

And here's an example of the ignorance of the Kelo decision common to most on the right.

Again, Kelo is among the more misunderstood of recent Court cases. The actual meaning of the ruling was lost as both liberals and conservatives contrived their own meanings to serve their respective political agendas.

The case had nothing to do with 'outlawing private property,' or the ‘little people’ at odds with ‘evil corporate monsters.’ At issue only was the definition of ‘public use,’ and if the City’s development plan met the public use requirement. Indeed, Ms. Kelo was requesting the Court make her case an exception to the established definition.

From the Kelo ruling:

'[T]his is not a case in which the City is planning to open the condemned land--at least not in its entirety--to use by the general public. Nor will the private lessees of the land in any sense be required to operate like common carriers, making their services available to all comers. But although such a projected use would be sufficient to satisfy the public use requirement, this "Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public." Id., at 244. Indeed, while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed "use by the public" as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the "use by the public" test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?),7 but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society.8 Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose." See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 158-164 (1896). Thus, in a case upholding a mining company's use of an aerial bucket line to transport ore over property it did not own, Justice Holmes' opinion for the Court stressed "the inadequacy of use by the general public as a universal test." Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co., 200 U. S. 527, 531 (1906).9 We have repeatedly and consistently rejected that narrow test ever since.'

The majority, therefore, merely followed the precedent established in Fallbrook and rejected the petitioners’ argument for a literal requirement. The petitioners could just as well have been a multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporation subject to the same eminent domain taking.

Consequently:

'The disposition of this case therefore turns on the question whether the City's development plan serves a "public purpose." Without exception, our cases have defined that concept broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field. ibid

So again, the Court acknowledges precedent and accedes to the local jurisdiction’s definition of a public purpose.

I disagree, I have been saved


How are the people stating that the ruling is rubbish fabricating anything. This ruling essentially confirmed that the government has the right to seize property from one person and give it to another. Am I incorrect in that because you seem to be affirming that is the case. In my opinion, that is absolutely abominable.

Again, under that guise, there is nothing that the government cannot seize for a company like Pepsi because it will generate 'jobs' and is therefore in the 'public interest.' That is insane.

At no time should the government be able to seize property that one person owns and give it to another - under any guise.

 

[mdk]

Korematsu v. United States

An utterly disgraceful decision.

?

And a really silly one to redress considering that has essentially already been done.

The case has zero bearing on current law and would never pass muster again. It is disgraceful, yes, but in the past.

So is the Dred Scott decision. I am thinking more along the lines of changing the decision when it occurred.