Take the VP Challenge: Can you name ANY SCOTUS decision other than Roe v Wade?
- Thread starter .Shane.
- Start date
I think people are misunderstanding what Palin was supposed to say:
"Activist Judges!?1? Roar! Grrr! Spit! I hates activist judges!"
"Activist Judges!?1? Roar! Grrr! Spit! I hates activist judges!"
The one I remember most from the Constitutional Law class I had (and really liked eventhough I am a science guy) is Baron v. Baltimore. It is from the 1700's I think but is still an operative principle.
It ruled that the Bill of Rights does not apply as a restriction on the states. I never knew this principle and it shocked me.
It ruled that the Bill of Rights does not apply as a restriction on the states. I never knew this principle and it shocked me.
Geez, Miranda rights are due to a lawsuit and not due to legislation???
You guys sometimes really kick and struggle against human rights, eh?
You guys sometimes really kick and struggle against human rights, eh?
Good question. As I mentioned earlier, the real point is not to crucify her for not having a rote memory of case laws. Rather, as the SUPREME F***ING EXECUTIVE of the US govt. its is not only reasonable, but necessary, to have a functioning knowledge of key cases of judicial history as it has effected the entire shape our legal system.
So, more than being able to spout out names of cases, I want to see if she has any concept of the judiciary and how it shapes and has shaped the country. It would seem she is clueless. But, again, I want to see it in the context of the interview.
This is one of my favorite things to remind my students about. That the original BoR was not some great list of enumerated rights to you, the citizen, rather, its a check list of things the fed can't due to you, but that states can. The best evidence of this in the 1st Amendment, where it says "Congress shall make no law ... ", the implication being that New Jersey is free to make whatever law it likes.
This is what the 14th Amendment, birthed by the Civil War, and raised to adulthood via a myriad of law and judicial review, changed. It made the fed the guarantor of these rights, above the states, via the process of incorporation. However, this hasn't applied to all amendments yet. The best example being the 2nd, hence states/cities/counties can make all kinds of laws restricting your rights. Although DC v. Heller bodes that a change may be coming here.
Miles Teg
Nuclear Powered Mentat
No, the Miranda rights are all established via legislation, some of them are even in the Constitution. Miranda vs Arizona simply mandated that criminals be informed of them before being interrogated. That's why police on TV usually go 'you have the right to remain silent' after arresting someone.
Well, we don't need legislation because it's in our Constitution. For now, at least (I'd be willing to bet that the central holding of Miranda is 5-4 right now).
Cleo
for a people who allegedly believe in limited government, we've had to fight like hell to keep it's power in check. Currently we're losing.
Brown v. Board of Education. Integrated schools.
Plessy v. Ferguson. "Separate but equal".
Williams v. State of California. Schools should be in good repair.
Engle v. Vitale. No school prayer.
Miranda v. Arizona. "Miranda rights".
Plessy v. Ferguson. "Separate but equal".
Williams v. State of California. Schools should be in good repair.
Engle v. Vitale. No school prayer.
Miranda v. Arizona. "Miranda rights".
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Sure I can. History major, taken classes on Constitutional Law. It's good stuff. I tried to take another on the formation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but it didn't fit my schedule.
EDIT: Oh, I didn't realize this was a game thread.
Palko vs. Connecticut (1937): about a simple double jeopardy case. Cardozo begins process of imposing Bill of Rights on the states if they are found to be "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty"
Adamson vs. California (1948): more imposition of Bill of Rights on the states, this time, the 5th Amendment's protection against self-incrimination. Hugo Black (probably my favorite justice) tries to straighten out Cardozo's idea by basically refuting it.
Weeks vs. United States (1914): Simply upholds the Exclusionary Rule for federal courts, which is that illegally seized evidence can't be used against you in court.
Wolfe vs. Colorado (1949): Applies Exclusionary Rule to the states.
Gideon vs. Wainwright (1963): Mandates that all defendants have a right to counsel, even if they cannot afford it. XI Amendment imposed on states.
Betts vs. Brady (1942): In one of the dumbest rulings of all time, the court declares there to be no right to free counsel except in "special circumstances" for which no one ever applies. Ever.
Miranda vs. Arizona (1966): Probably the most blatant case of legislating from the bench, even if I do agree with it. The case only dealt with self-incrimination and counsel, but Warren and Co. run wild and create the Miranda Rights we have now.
Abrams vs. United States (1919): The court keeps the "bad tendency test" concerning censorship. They come up with the phrase "clear and present danger" to describe what is material worthy of punishment.
New York Times vs. Sullivan (1964): Man claims libel by NYT. Court overturns lower courts' ruling in favor of Sullivan. Basically, politicians can make false statements about each other, but malicious intent (i.e. previous knowledge by the person that it's blatantly false) must be proven.
Roe vs. Wade (1973): Sets up three-tiered system, based on trimesters, for regulation, or non-regulation, of abortions.
Planned Parenthood vs. Casey (1992): Involved regulations of abortions, but Thomas tries to turn it into a straight-up challenge of Roe. The Majority votes against him (5-4), because of the principle of stare decisis, which is basically that you don't overturn a previous court's decision simply because you don't like it. It's also why I don't like him.
Marbury vs. Madison: I don't remember the date on this one. Establishes the court's right to judicial review, or the right to look at laws and evaluate their constitutionality, or lack thereof.
And all the other famous ones. Brown vs. Board of Education, Plessy vs. Ferguson, the Dredd Scott Case, Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia, et al.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
WASILLA v LUNDGREN ????
Shadylookin
master debater
Plessy vs Ferguson
Brown vs. The Board of Education
Miranda vs. Something or other(the miranda rights one)
Maubruy vs. Madison
those are the ones I can somewhat remember the titles to
Brown vs. The Board of Education
Miranda vs. Something or other(the miranda rights one)
Maubruy vs. Madison
those are the ones I can somewhat remember the titles to
mangxema
I
I could, but they've already been said umpteen times.
Nike Zeus
Warlord
I could name a bunch, and discuss a handful, but not ones with close relation to any current debates.
While we wait for the clip on the SCOTUS cases, I'll give you this fun one where Gov. Pallin can't/won't name 1 single paper or magazine that she reads...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y
Its like she's an automaton. She can't even answer this softball of a question. Jeebus, at least Dubya would've sputtered out "The Bible".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y
Its like she's an automaton. She can't even answer this softball of a question. Jeebus, at least Dubya would've sputtered out "The Bible".
If she just said *insert arab-sounding name here* v. Bush she could at least claim to be abreast of recent foreign policy issues.
When I read the title, my mind suddenly blanked, and the first thing that came to mind was Texas v. White. And now I feel bad for being such a history nerd.
MrPopov
King
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2006
- Messages
- 985
What a dumb question... then you hear the answer.
Similar threads
