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

maybe it all does come back to roe

[rkt.livejournal.com]

in the interests of today being national coming out day, let's go with lawrence v(ee) texas. basically, men have the constitutional right to enjoy homo-buggery because what happens in the bedroom, stays in the bedroom, and isn't the government's business so long as all are consenting adults. this was, in part, inspired by griswold vs. connecticut, a major predecessor to roe in and of itself, which stated that hormonal birth control is perfectly legal (for married women).

also up is 'the dred scott case', where scotus fell on its ass and said that slavery was perfectly constitutional (since a) folks of African descent could never be citizens and b) Congress had no constitutional right to tell fedeal territories what to do with regards to slavery. GW likes to tout this one in connection with abortion.

[kaygigi.livejournal.com]

Flynt Vs. US Postal Service - porno through the mail is legit

Other than that, I'm a huge fan of the Marshall Court. Yadda yadda yadda federalists. But hey, people like this idea of "interstate commerce" and "judicial review" and "limits on executive power". All results of the Marshall Court.
Ok, so I'll admit to turning to Wikipedia for some deets, but Worchester v. Georgia is interesting, as it establishes Native Americans as sovereign and assigns all dealings to recognized Nations as federal responsibilities, nation to nation dealings, not a realm of states.

There are a lot more cases I'm keen on, but really, Marshall set precedent and is a huge figure in the judicial legacies we still deal with.

[liveavatar.livejournal.com]

The case that's come immediately to my mind is Plessy v Ferguson, which made segregation constitutional. That much I knew without looking up -- what I'd forgotten was that the case was decided in 1896, much further past the Civil War than I'd remembered.

What I didn't know was this (taken from the decision's Wikipedia page):

When summarizing, Justice Brown declared, "We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it."

Classic blame-the-victim, absolutely classic.

[rkt.livejournal.com]

marshall's court was a very mighty fine court.

[rkt.livejournal.com]

scotus has had a lot of bad calls, but that declaration, damn.

and plessy is a classic that somone who wants to be Number 2 should absolutely remember, if only that it had to do with saying segreation was a-ok.

[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.

[badlysocialized.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure whether knowledge of Supreme Court cases is indicative of something besides knowledge of Supreme Court cases. I think it depends on whether you consider knowing the rights these cases give you as "knowledge of Supreme Court cases". Is it important to know the name of Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, etc.? Not really. It's pretty important that folks know what those cases SAID though.

[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.

[rkt.livejournal.com]

fair enough. i should have worded it better. and that ... mentality(?) is actually how hollywood got its mention in the post because when i was polling/ranting at friends, one of them mentioned the flynt case because she'd seen the movie and didn't know much else but the end result and his involvement.

point being, sarah palin's lack of basic governmental knowledge scares the shit out of me.