• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Supreme Court Decisions

SezMe

post-pre-born
SezMe
Joined
Dec 30, 2003
Messages
25,183
Location
Santa Barbara, CA
I'm interested in exploring the decisions of the USA Supreme Court from its outset to the current day. I would pose four questions:

1. What is the worst SC decision? Use your own definition of "worst".
2. What is the best decision? Use your own definition of "best".
3. What SC decision has had the most impact on USA jurisprudence?
4. What SC decision has had the most impact on USA society in general.

IANAL so I don't really have good insights to these questions but I am interested nonetheless. Just in the spirit of this post, I'll toss out my guesses:

1. Dred Scott?
2. I don't know.
3. Marbury v. Madison?
4. Brown v. Board?

For once, sharks are especially welcome to comment - even those outside the USA.

Thanks in advance.
 
Roe v. Wade is probably up there in importance, considering how many times people have tried to overturn it in their own way.
 
Sceptic-PK said:
1. Citizen United ruling has got to be up there.
Click to expand...

I think CU was a poor decision, but I also think *lots* of people think the ruling says something it doesn't. In a nutshell, it just says that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations (and labor unions and other similar associations). Direct contributions by corporations (or unions and other similar associations) to candidate campaigns or political parties are still illegal.

Super PACs that allow anonymous donors to give unlimited amounts of money weren't created by the CU ruling (tho they were surely helped by it). They were created by FEC regs. Its the way the FEC allows super PACS to operate that I think is the larger problem - and a problem many seem to lump solely on to the CU decision.
 
SezMe said:
I'm interested in exploring the decisions of the USA Supreme Court from its outset to the current day. I would pose four questions:

1. What is the worst SC decision? Use your own definition of "worst".
2. What is the best decision? Use your own definition of "best".
3. What SC decision has had the most impact on USA jurisprudence?
4. What SC decision has had the most impact on USA society in general.

IANAL so I don't really have good insights to these questions but I am interested nonetheless. Just in the spirit of this post, I'll toss out my guesses:

1. Dred Scott?
2. I don't know.
3. Marbury v. Madison?
4. Brown v. Board?

For once, sharks are especially welcome to comment - even those outside the USA.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

We can certainly agree that all of them have been correct.
 
SezMe said:
I'm interested in exploring the decisions of the USA Supreme Court from its outset to the current day. I would pose four questions:

1. What is the worst SC decision? Use your own definition of "worst".
2. What is the best decision? Use your own definition of "best".
3. What SC decision has had the most impact on USA jurisprudence?
4. What SC decision has had the most impact on USA society in general.

IANAL so I don't really have good insights to these questions but I am interested nonetheless. Just in the spirit of this post, I'll toss out my guesses:

1. Dred Scott?
2. I don't know.
3. Marbury v. Madison?
4. Brown v. Board?

For once, sharks are especially welcome to comment - even those outside the USA.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

In terms of importance, catsmate1 has it right in the sense that this legal ruling essentially laid the role of the Supreme Court that "everybody thinks" is actually spelled out in the constitution.

catsmate1 said:
In importance? Marbury v. Madison.
Click to expand...

But beyond that important ruling, all the other most important rulings are those that make up what is known as the incorporation doctrine.
 
Worst in recent years: Probably the Kelo decision, where the Supreme Court decided taking land from someone and giving it to a private corporation which could pay more taxes on it counted as a "public use" for eminent domain purposes. The entire purpose of the restriction on government was to stop the King from taking things at his royal whim for his benefit, much less to His Buddies for a mutual profit kickback scheme. This wasn't some land they needed to put a road or bridge through.
 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
Worst in recent years: Probably the Kelo decision, where the Supreme Court decided taking land from someone and giving it to a private corporation which could pay more taxes on it counted as a "public use" for eminent domain purposes. The entire purpose of the restriction on government was to stop the King from taking things at his royal whim for his benefit, much less to His Buddies for a mutual profit kickback scheme. This wasn't some land they needed to put a road or bridge through.
Click to expand...
This is definitely my pick, also.
 
Beerina said:
Worst in recent years: Probably the Kelo decision, where the Supreme Court decided taking land from someone and giving it to a private corporation which could pay more taxes on it counted as a "public use" for eminent domain purposes. The entire purpose of the restriction on government was to stop the King from taking things at his royal whim for his benefit, much less to His Buddies for a mutual profit kickback scheme. This wasn't some land they needed to put a road or bridge through.
Click to expand...

That one was a kick to the gut - it made it clearer than ever that we don't actually own real estate, we're just allowed the pretense of ownership unless and until the government decides they want it.

But, what reasoning could they use to rule the opposite way that would not also potentially eliminate eminent domain for bridges and roads (not that this would necessarily be a bad thing)? Why are bridges and roads "needed" differently than shopping malls? Bridges and roads are also built to drive growth and enrich those invested in that growth.
 
As long lasting consequence would be the one allowing the company to be declared persons, because this led later to many decision including citizen united or that one with the refusal of contraception from that family firm.


Corportation should neither have the right of free speech, nor religious belief.
 
madurobob said:
That one was a kick to the gut - it made it clearer than ever that we don't actually own real estate, we're just allowed the pretense of ownership unless and until the government decides they want it.

But, what reasoning could they use to rule the opposite way that would not also potentially eliminate eminent domain for bridges and roads (not that this would necessarily be a bad thing)? Why are bridges and roads "needed" differently than shopping malls? Bridges and roads are also built to drive growth and enrich those invested in that growth.
Click to expand...

Bridges and roads are for public use, obviously: they're controlled by the government, and the public uses them.

A mall is for private use: it's owned privately, and managed privately, for whatever purposes that private owner wants to put it towards. The fact that it might, as a side effect, raise more property tax should not qualify its transfer to other private ownership as a "public use". And as actual events have demonstrated (the redevelopment project never happened, and the Kelo property now stands vacant, generating no property taxes at all), even that premise turned out to be a farce.
 
Aepervius said:
As long lasting consequence would be the one allowing the company to be declared persons, because this led later to many decision including citizen united or that one with the refusal of contraception from that family firm.
Click to expand...

Wrong on both counts. Neither case depends upon corporate personhood. Both cases were decided upon the basis of upholding the 1st amendment rights of individuals who formed those corporations, but it's still the rights of those individuals which was being protected.

Plus, you seem to be ignorant about what corporate personhood actually does do. Corporate personhood is what allows you to sue a corporation. That's a pretty good thing to be able to do, isn't it?
 
Ziggurat said:
Bridges and roads are for public use, obviously: they're controlled by the government, and the public uses them.

A mall is for private use: it's owned privately, and managed privately, for whatever purposes that private owner wants to put it towards
Click to expand...

I don;t disagree, but I don't see this as anywhere near as black and white as you.

The Mall is for public use, too. That use is controlled by the municipal planning department that issues permits, approves plans, certifies suitability for occupancy and use, etc... The "owner" would have a very hard time turning it into a private club or personal palace. The municipality approved the mall because it thought it was good for the municipality... for the public. In that regard, its not much different than a road or a bridge.

If imminent domain is used to acquire property (lets say for a road, to ensure we agree its a "legitimate" use of ID), must that property now forever remain owned by the municipality? Or, can they can transfer it to some private party sometime in the future if the municipality decides its no longer needed (when?)? Could they lease it to a private party for a long term lease? Any ruling that says ID can only be used if the property is to be owned by the municipality, would also have to say for how long, and what it can do with it. I can see why the SCOTUS would struggle with this.

Or, more to the point, if a municipality can legitimately seize property because it deems that seizure to be for the greater public good (as for a road or bridge), why does it matter who owns the property afterwords, especially if that ownership was considered as part of the decision on the greater public good?

I'm not saying I think its a good thing. I'm just saying I don't see what specific wording the SCOTUS could have used in denying ID in this case that would not also either 1)make ID impossible for roads and bridges or 2) be entirely toothless. Can you provide that wording?
 
madurobob said:
I'm not saying I think its a good thing. I'm just saying I don't see what specific wording the SCOTUS could have used in denying ID in this case that would not also either 1)make ID impossible for roads and bridges or 2) be entirely toothless. Can you provide that wording?
Click to expand...
The taking by the city of New London is an impermissible use of the eminent domain power because it is simply the transfer of property from one private entity to another. Kelo did not want to sell her property to someone, so the government forced her to do so. The "public use" justification proposed by the City is so broad that to accept it is to reduce the fifth amendment's protection of private property to mere hortatory fluff, as any public servant capable of sustained respiration could dream up some "public benefit" (as the exception has now become twisted to mean) to any taking. To qualify under the fifth amendment's public use exception, the public (i.e., the government) must take possession of the land for a specific purpose that is reasonably assured to occur.

Boom. Four minutes. Done.
 
On point to the OP, it's really impossible for me to say. There are so many to choose from in each category. Do we choose Wickard v. Filburn as the worst because now everything is interstate commerce? Do we choose PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin because the Supreme Court of the United States decided it needed to tell a private group which rules of its game were the important ones? So many are so bad for such different reasons (and the same for the good ones) that it's really not possible to rank them on the same scale, in my opinion.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
The taking by the city of New London is an impermissible use of the eminent domain power because it is simply the transfer of property from one private entity to another. Kelo did not want to sell her property to someone, so the government forced her to do so. The "public use" justification proposed by the City is so broad that to accept it is to reduce the fifth amendment's protection of private property to mere hortatory fluff, as any public servant capable of sustained respiration could dream up some "public benefit" (as the exception has now become twisted to mean) to any taking. To qualify under the fifth amendment's public use exception, the public (i.e., the government) must take possession of the land for a specific purpose that is reasonably assured to occur.

Boom. Four minutes. Done.
Click to expand...

So it would be perfectly acceptable for the city to seize the land, then sign a 99 year lease of that land to the mall developer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom