Worst SCOTUS cases

[Antonio the Sixth]

These are all horrible indeed. The worst of the worst obviously being Dred Scott.

There is a particularly despicable one which people often overlook, but which had the most terrible consequences for this country: Buckley v. Valeo, where they basically established that money=speech (thus laying the groundwork for Citizens United).

Also, Dennis v. US flies in the face of the 1st Amendment so blatantly that it's almost a joke.

And of course, you have all the reactionary decisions that struck down New Deal policies.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not really familiar with the Dred Scott ruling apart from the right to property bit. How exactly did the court come up with this notion that blacks (including those who were free) could never be US citizens? I don't see any possible legal rationale to justify it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not really familiar with the Dred Scott ruling apart from the right to property bit. How exactly did the court come up with this notion that blacks (including those who were free) could never be US citizens? I don't see any possible legal rationale to justify it.

The majority opinion's summary of its own legal rationale:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From a purely legal standpoint... that sounds like utter nonsense to me.

So the rationale is basically "a US citizen now is someone who was a US citizen when the constitution was ratified". Huh... why exactly? Where in the Constitution does it say that?

How the hell can you even determine who is a "citizen" and who is a "foreigner" based on whether or not they would have been at the time? So does that mean immigrants who became citizens after the ratification of the Constitution actually are not citizens? What about their children? They shouldn't be citizens either if we follow that logic. And what about someone who's the son of an immigrant and of a citizen?

Seriously, disregarding any moral consideration, this might be the most blatantly stupid ruling I've ever seen.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I have nothing to add to NCY's excellent rebuttal, but I must say I really don't get why Inks seems to care so much about defending Dred Scott. Of course a morally awful decision is not necessarily legally incorrect... but Dred Scott was blatantly both.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Perhaps no other branch can be as dangerous if its power is abused, nor is as difficult to correct its mistakes as that of the Supreme Court and thus I would hope that liberals could embrace at least some degree of conservatism with regards to its function.

I actually 100% agree with that. While I certainly won't describe myself as a Conservative, I often happen to disagree with my fellow liberals on our respective approaches to the SCOTUS. See my long rants here as an example. I just hate it when judicial bodies become politicized and start using the law to push for their own political views (conservatives actually do this more often than liberals, but that doesn't mean it's OK for liberals to do it). And indeed, the Supreme Court being so powerful makes it even more important that its members don't overstep their boundaried.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If you read the text of the 5th Amendment that way, that's fine.  It's certainly not clear that it means what you say it does.

And to Justice O'Connor's point:  I understand where she's coming from.  But, there's no good line to draw between public use and non-public use from the judicial branch.  And didn't Justice O'Connor write the majority in a public use challenge to a Hawaiian land reform?  Land reform seems like a private use.

As to the point of public and non-public use, I agree with my prior O'Connor quote that deference to the legislature requires a judicial check. If you leave the definition of "public use" completely to the political branches, it loses any power of constraint on the government. I'm not anymore comfortable letting the government have sole determination as to what constitutes "public use" than I am with any other clause in the Bill of Rights.

Isn't Kennedy's test satisfactory in that regard? Since he was the decisive vote in that case, one could consider his view effectively prevailed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The correct answer is Miranda v Arizona.

lolkrazenlol

[Antonio the Sixth]

There is a particularly despicable one which people often overlook, but which had the most terrible consequences for this country: Buckley v. Valeo, where they basically established that money=speech (thus laying the groundwork for Citizens United).

...and the McCutcheon ruling once again confirms Buckley's nefarious impact on jurisprudence.