How would you have ruled in the preceding case?

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

Quite enthusiastically in the majority. That one was a no-brainer.

Fedorenko v. United States

[politicallefty]

It seems like the Court got it right, so I would go with the majority opinion. Though I may disagree with what happened post-deportation, it is not relevant to the constitutional issue before the Court.

Kyllo v. United States

[NewYorkExpress]

With the Dissent, based on that they probably didn't need the thermal imaging to build the case, They could have gotten the utility bills and used the informants first.

Zivtofsky v. Clinton

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Dissenting with Breyer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christensen_v._Harris_County

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Concur as to decision, but not as to reasoning. I concur with the dissent as to how that section of the FLSA should be interpreted.  However, I'd have used the case to revisit Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority and thus strike down the application of FLSA to state and local governments doing core government functions, of which law enforcement clearly is one.

Speaking of which: Garcia v. SAMTA

[Supersonic]

Dissenting, though I would have taken a middle path between O'Connor and Powell and signed onto Rehnquist's opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenberg_v._Carhart

[pbrower2a]

With the majority, in what would probably be one of the most certain votes of my career.

National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie

For the Nazis -- but expressing unambiguous hatred for everything about them.  Such is to protect non-violent protests by other organizations which might evoke nearly-universal contempt.

[politicallefty]

Dissenting, though I would have taken a middle path between O'Connor and Powell and signed onto Rehnquist's opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenberg_v._Carhart

I would have supported the majority in striking down the law. I cannot imagine any abortion regulation prior to viability that could survive strict scrutiny.

(I really hope I don't have to answer another abortion ruling.)

Vacco v. Quill

[Sol]

With Stevens's concurrence.

Lawrence v. Texas

[Antonio the Sixth]

Fellow liberals, please don't lynch me.

As much as I think sodomy laws should be unconstitutional, I just have a hard time getting behind Kennedy's rationale. The whole "substantive due process" doctrine looks pretty shaky to me. Can you honestly find any basis for it in the actual wording of the clause? "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" clearly means that a State can deprive a person of life, liberty, or property if it follows a lawful procedure. It does not say anything about what activity State may or may not decide to outlaw. As for the 9th Amendment's "un-enumerated rights", I just don't see how you can base anything on it. Honestly, the 9th Amendment is bullsh*t. Possibly the most poorly worded constitutional text ever. What does it mean, that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"? How can you determine what those rights are, if the Constitution says nothing about them? And who is supposed to figure out what these "un-enumerated rights" are? Based on what? The Amendment itself is inherently void. Either it might mean that "the people" have potentially unlimited rights (meaning that the government has no power at all) or it might mean nothing at all. If I have to choose between these two, I choose the latter.

On the other hand, O'Connor raises a valid point. Since the Texas statute arbitrarily discriminates between homosexual sodomy and heterosexual sodomy, it may be said to violate the Equal Protection clause. It should be struck down for that reason. However, as much as I would like to, I find nothing in the Constitution which can legitimately be read as making an indiscriminate sodomy ban inherently unconstitutional.

So yeah, Lawrence v. Texas belongs to this species of cases which are legally flawed but morally right - along with Roe v Wade and possibly many others. It is a sad reflection on the US that the SCOTUS had to overstep its boundaries to stop this crap, where really all that should be needed is a Texas legislature with some brain.

New York Times v. US

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Majority; the administration had no authority to block publication (or even that good a reason).

Korematsu v. United States

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I would concur with Roberts' dissent, but not with those of Murphy or Jackson.  Had it been an exclusion order alone, then I think it would have been constitutional, but as Roberts pointed out, the exclusion was conjoined with internment and the majority was profoundly wrong in treating it as a separate issue. Indeed, it would seem they did so for the express purpose of not embarrassing the government by ruling against it.

Let us see how someone would judge with the predecessor case, Hirabayashi v. United States.

[SPC]

Against the Court, the Federal government does not have any delegated power to impose curfews on American citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_v._King

[politicallefty]

I would've agreed with Justice Ginsburg's dissent. The Court gave far too much flexibility to the police. This was clearly a case of police-created exigent circumstances that should have been ruled in violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, as unfortunate as that decision was, the search was still deemed unconstitutional on remand.

Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Concur with the majority.  Missouri v. Holland

Against the Court, the Federal government does not have any delegated power to intern American citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_v._King

Hirabayashi v. United States was about curfews not interning.

[minionofmidas]

Concur with the majority.  Missouri v. Holland

A painful kludge to undo an earlier false decision, apparently.

U.S. vs Washington (1974, the Boldt case). EDIT: Yeah, I know, not SCOTUS. Just realized that means it's probably against the rules here. Though apparently it later reached them under the new name of "Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n (Fishing Vessel)"

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Concur with the majority.

Wallace v. Jaffree

[Antonio the Sixth]

Hard to say... I have no objection on principle to a silent moment of meditation at the beginning of classes - meditation is a worthwhile activity whether you are religious or not. On the other hand, Alabama lawmakers made it so blatant that it was a veiled way of reintroducing school prayer, that I would probably ask some strict guarantees.

Since we're in the topic of religion at school... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_Grove_Unified_School_District_v._Newdow

(please whatever you think of the issue of standing, also address the substance of the suit)

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

With the court regarding standing with Rehnquist's concurrence. In addition I would rule the pledge constitutional based off Hennington v. Georiga which will be the next case.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

How you link Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow to Hennington v. Georgia is beyond me.  The former is an establishment clause case while the latter is an interstate commerce clause case that at most tangentially relates to religion.

Hennington v. Georgia was about the constitutionality of a blue law requiring that railroads in Georgia not operate on Sundays.  Hennington was a manager of the Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company who had his trains run thru Dade County in violation of said law.  Dade County is in the extreme northwest corner of Georgia and the rail line in question connected Chattanooga with New Orleans. (Roughly along the route of I-59 today.)  No stops on Sunday were being made in Georgia as the plaintiff alleged that Georgia's law impinged upon interstate commerce and thus was unconstitutional.

Hennington v. Georgia is one of a long line of cases ruling that the police power of the states when it incidentally affects interstate commerce is not impeded by the interstate commerce clause in the absence of any Congressional legislation to the contrary.  The court found that Georgia's blue law met that standard of having an incidental effect and ruled for the State of Georgia.  While I think the court was a tad too dismissive of the potential effects of such laws on interstate commerce when they impinge upon the ability to travel, especially if conflicting laws were enacted in bordering states, such a hypothetical problem does not apply to this case and thus I would concur with the court.

Next case: 62 Cases of Jam v. United States

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Hennington v. Georgia
With the dissent, but based on the Establishment Clause rather than the Interstate Commerce Clause.

62 Cases of Jam v. United States
Probably concur with the majority, although I would require that hotels, restaurants, etc. refer to it as something other than "jam."

[Oldiesfreak1854]

As for my case to answer for:

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The majority, obviously (even though I'm a Racist Democrat )

Arkansas v. Sanders

[bedstuy]

I would concur in the result, but say that there shouldn't be an automobile exception to the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment at all.  I would rather just have all 4th Amendment exceptions explained by exigency or some type of generality and regularity.   

Wal-Mart v. Dukes

[JerryArkansas]

The Majority.

Hollingsworth v. Perry