Best Supreme Court ruling

[minionofmidas]

Sympathy vote for Worcester vs Georgia, which president A***ole Jackson refused to enforce.

[Peter]

Furman v. Georgia was by far the most intellectual riveting of the Supreme Court opinions to date. The exchange of ideas is simply amazing, even if some Justices were totally wrong in coming to their conclusions. Whether you agree with the Court or the individuals, this was by far the Supreme Court's finest hour.

The best ever was Bush v. Gore.

Have you actually read this excuse for a judicial opinion?

Read my thoughts on this calamity in this thread.

I've got plenty more reasons to say why it was total garbage if you like as well.

[Bono]

I don't see why so many people llove Lawrence vs. Texas. While I don't like sodomy laws, I oppose federalizing it. It's just one more axing on states' rights.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I don't care about state's rights if the right is to pass ing idiotic and asinine laws. that's one right states shouldn't have.

[J. J.]

Most (if not all) of the rulings cited in earlier postings on this thread would not have existed without Marbury v. Madison (1803). That ruling define the SCOTUS' ability to curtail government by declaring acts of Congress or the President unconstitutional. I don't always agree with where that power has led, but I appreciate having the additional check on the other branches.

I have to agree, but M'Culluch v. Maryland would be close.  If you are going to have a national government, a strong government, you do have to limit the state's role in interfering with it.

[Peter]

I don't see why so many people llove Lawrence vs. Texas. While I don't like sodomy laws, I oppose federalizing it. It's just one more axing on states' rights.

I don't support states' rights over people's individual right to have privacy in their own bedroom and their right to engage in whatever non-commercial, consensual sexual activity (between adults) that they wish to. The state has no power to enter the bedroom under these circumstances, period, and the federal government simply recognised this.

[A18]

Judges aren't supposed to decide what a ing idiotic and asinine law is. The multi-thousand page federal tax code is ing idiotic and asinine, but you don't see right-wing judges striking it down. That's why we elect legislators.

The federal government has no power to decide that States can't regulate non-commercial, consensual sexual activity between adults.

[J. J.]

I don't care about state's rights if the right is to pass g idiotic and asinine laws. that's one right states shouldn't have.

Would you point to the section of the Constitution that says a state is prohibited from adopting "g idiotic and asinine laws."  Even though I disagree with this statute, I recognize the right of a state to adopt a law that I regard as moronic.

As Peter Bell pointed out, there are other grounds.

[minionofmidas]

I don't care about state's rights if the right is to pass g idiotic and asinine laws. that's one right states shouldn't have.

Would you point to the section of the Constitution that says a state is prohibited from adopting "g idiotic and asinine laws."  Even though I disagree with this statute, I recognize the right of a state to adopt a law that I regard as moronic.

Now that would make a fine amendment.

[they don't love you like i love you]

What the judges are basically doing in overturning such laws is engaging in civil disobediance.

[Peter]

The federal government has no power to decide that States can't regulate non-commercial, consensual sexual activity between adults.

The inherent right of privacy found in the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th amendments, along with the 9th, 10th and 14th amendments says that the States can't do what Texas tried to do in this case. The federal government simply reminded them of this fact.

[Peter]

What the judges are basically doing in overturning such laws is engaging in civil disobediance.

You're not drunk and/or high are you?

I ask because what you are saying is total bollocks. The Judges in this case were simply upholding the Constitution, there is nothing civilly disobedient about that.

[A18]

Civil disobedience can be honorable, but not when you took an oath to uphold the law.

I don't find an inherit right to privacy in any of the amendments you mention; and if it is found in so many places, I find it odd that they would never come out and say it.

[Bono]

I don't care about state's rights if the right is to pass g idiotic and asinine laws. that's one right states shouldn't have.

This pretty much sums up m position on it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[PBrunsel]

As soon as Roe v. Wade is overturned, that will be the best Supreme Court ruling ever.