again x-posting us centricism

[rkt]

borrowing a bit from badlysocialized

there's something about that 'i have more foreign policy experience than sarah palin' meme that's floated around facebook that unnerves me. because while ms. palin may not have much of an excuse for lacking stamps in her passport, being that she can see russia from her porch, a lot of other people have lacked the privilege to hop around the globe, thereby depriving them of that claim.

but, by now you probably have heard that when asked to discuss a supreme court decision besides roe, gov palin's response was, "um roe?".
or something like that. so how about a more practical challenge?

i don't expect you to necessarily know a whole repertoire of supreme court cases. and i don't think that such knowledge is inherently a sign of anything other than a knowledge of US supreme court cases, except maybe a vested interest in (US) civics.
yet, i'd be willing to bet that most people here could name at least one other court case.
including ones from high school social studies-related classes, hollywood, or recent media (/journal-blog) stories.

so i challenge you to name at least one and give a vague synopsis. repeats are acceptable. this is not a competition. no gold stars for pullng out obscurity for the sake of obscurity, just gold stars all around for particpating, but you can still pat yourself on the back for the less-known.

Comments

[bike4fish.livejournal.com]

I'll admit that I did get an A in my undergrad Constitutional Law and Judicial Policy Making class.

I would say that the most important Supreme Court case was Marbury vs. Madison, in which the Supreme Court ostensibly was addressing an issue of a political appointment. The case was before the Supreme Court because Congress had passed a law giving the Supreme Court original jurisdiction. The decision, if I remember correctly, went into some detail about the merits of Marbury's argument, siding with him, and against the administration (Madison's). But the court did not make a ruling on that. Instead, they looked at whether the law that had given the court original jurisdiction was in agreement with the Constitution, which specifies what the court's jurisdiction is. They ruled that the law was in conflict with the Constitution, and therefore void. So the Supreme Court first unequivocally asserted its position as the final arbiter of Constitutionality by denying itself a much lesser power given by Congress. The actual decision is quite interesting to read.

Heart of Atlanta was a public accommodations ruling - something that people just don't think about today. It put the nail in the head of overt racial segregation by private parties doing business with the public.

One of my favorite William O. Douglas opinions (a dissent) was in Sierra Club vs. Morton, in which he suggested that giving natural features that were in danger of defilement standing in their own right.

[rkt.livejournal.com]

agreed on the marbury vs. madison. marbury (as well as mashall court discussion) were lost when the original writing of this disappeared.

ohhhh. i like your choices.