rank the follwing cases

[MaC]

from best to worst rulings

Dred Scott v Sanford (1857)
Plessy v Ferguson (1896)
Lochner v United States(1905)
Schenck v United States (1919)
West Coast Hotel v Parrish(1937)
Korematsu v United States (1944)
Griswold v Connecticut (1965)
Roe v Wade(1973)
Goldwater v Carter (1979)
Texas v Johson (1989)
Bush v Gore (2000)
Kelo v New London(2005)

[Emsworth]

Some of the cases you mention don't seem to belong on the list. The following rulings were actually good:

1. Texas v. Johnson
2. Goldwater v. Carter
3. West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (sound decision, unsound reasoning)

The rest range from highly unsound to utterly atrocious:
4. Bush v. Gore
5. Kelo v. New London
6. Schenck v. United States
7. Griswold v. Connecticut
8. Lochner v. New York
9. Roe v. Wade
10. Plessy v. Ferguson
11. Korematsu v. United States
12. Dred Scott v. Sandford

[Sam Spade]

West Coast Hotel v Parrish(1937) - This actually overturned an  decision of a few years earlier saying women's minimum wages were unconstitutional (which overturned an earlier decision which allowed female minimum wages!).  This is simply a sound overturning of one of the Lochner court's abuses of the liberty of contract doctrine, which unfortunately turned later into abuses concerning the Commerce Clause.

Schenck v United States (1919) - I see no problem with this opinion.  It was during a "declared war" and the specific acts the defendant did were within the wording of the statute.

Goldwater v Carter (1979) - rather minor case, don't know why it's here.  The question really isn't judicial, Rehnquist is correct. (I had to read it myself)

Bush v Gore (2000) - Probably the correct decision, but based off of the wrong rationale.  The Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas approach was a stronger argument IMHO than the Equal Protection approach, and frankly in using the Equal Protection Approach, I see no reason why 3 additional days for the count (when Florida law stated it must be turned in) was bad for the process.  Then again, maybe the USSC just wanted to say to the Florida SC, "Your decisions were so terrible, we're not going to give you the chance to purposely screw it up again".  That would be logical to me.

Griswold v Connecticut (1965) - Probably the correct decision, but the rationale is atrocious.

Kelo v New London (2005) - ironically much better than the 1986 Takings Clause ruling.  Really, this whole issue has been poorly decided on since the 1950s (I forget the case though)

Korematsu v United States (1944) - As A18 pointed out in a thread on this case, it really is based on the reasoning a case of a couple of years before (the name escapes me) and holds well within those bounds.  The issue I have with it is that the actions used against Korematsu were not explicit in the statute itself.  The case raises a lot of questions to me there.

Plessy v Ferguson (1896) - In reading the 13th and 14th amendments closely, this is probably a correct decision, however, the policy issues raised later on frankly made it unattainable.

Lochner v United States(1905) - Liberty of contract doctrine.  Really doesn't make sense, IMHO in this particular case, though there's nothing to me that says the Contracts Clause should be ignored, like it is today.

Texas v Johnson (1989) - less bad because it's been overruled.  Still bad decision.  Stevens dissent is hilarious.

Dred Scott v Sandford (1857) - once again, less bad because it's been overruled.

Roe v Wade(1973) - actually has been superseded by PP v. Casey, but still somewhat relevant, henceforth lower than Dred.  The major cause of most political and judicial "strife" in the US today and so unnecessary.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Best ruling:

Bush v. Gore

Worst Ruling;

Roe v. Wade

Dred Scott was not really that bad

[Emsworth]

This all could have been avoided if the networks waited untill all the voters, including the ones in the central time zone, got to vote.

In all likelihood, the election would still have been close, and a recount still would have been conducted, even if the networks delayed the announcement of their projections.

[Ebowed]

Dred Scott was not really that bad

Why do you hate black people?

[BlueDogDem]

Dred Scott was not really that bad

Why do you hate black people?

I don't think DWTL hates black people, maybe he feels it was a soundly decided case even though it was a dumb ruling

[Ebowed]

Dred Scott was not really that bad

Why do you hate black people?

I don't think DWTL hates black people, maybe he feels it was a soundly decided case even though it was a dumb ruling

Trust me, he isn't capable of comprehending the idea of a case being "soundly decided."  He is a conservative judicial activist.

[BlueDogDem]

Trust me, he isn't capable of comprehending the idea of a case being "soundly decided."  He is a conservative judicial activist.

I think you are just being absurd here and need to realize people's opinions can differ and no one on this forum is genuinely an idiot

[Ebowed]

Trust me, he isn't capable of comprehending the idea of a case being "soundly decided."  He is a conservative judicial activist.

I think you are just being absurd here and need to realize people's opinions can differ and no one on this forum is genuinely an idiot

Why don't you just log back in as DWTL?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

IP check please

[Alcon]

IP check please

Done about an hour ago with predictable results.

[??????????]

Well you really could debate the Scott v Sandford ruling for a few reasons. Firstly, at that period in time, slavery WAS legal within the United States. If you wanted to you could form an argument surrounding stolen property, etc. You must remember (as we already know) that the so called "human" aspect couldn't be taken into consideration in such a matter. If you look at the issue solely on a property dispute you could see the positive points the slaveholders made in regards to runaway slaves.

[Emsworth]

If you look at the issue solely on a property dispute you could see the positive points the slaveholders made in regards to runaway slaves.

Dred Scott did not run away. His master took him to free soil voluntarily. Indeed, if he had run away, the case would have been indisputable.

[MaC]

Best ruling:

Bush v. Gore

Worst Ruling;

Roe v. Wade

Dred Scott was not really that bad

Bush v Gore was a horrible decision that said that that particular case could not be used as a precedent.  Perhaps dwdl only likes judicial activism when it's in something he favors.

[minionofmidas]

In fact, the only reason Dred Scott wasn't officially a free man at the time of the ruling was his nominal owner's desire to see slavery reined in by judicial activism. John Sanford, who had inherited Dred Scott (it's not Scott vs Sanford btw, but Dred Scott vs Sanford. Scott is a middle name here, not a surname. Slaves didn't have surnames.), was a lifetime New York state resident.