Supreme Court Decisions

Grizzly Adams said:
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?
Click to expand...
(bolding mine)

I'd go with Wickard v. Filburn, of the decisions I'm aware of. As far as I can tell, your use of the word "everything" is not, unfortunately, hyperbolic.
 
Last edited:
Loss Leader said:
Here's one that lawyers know but not many lay people:

Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road Co.
Click to expand...

The impact of the that decision also extends beyond your borders. I learned about that case studying insurance in Canada.
 
madurobob said:
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.
Click to expand...

But the owner would have an easy time simply walking away from it. Which is exactly what happened.

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.
Click to expand...

No. Their reasoning was specifically because of increased tax revenue, not because of the public's use of the mall.

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?
Click to expand...

No, but the use for which it was seized should indeed be a public use. And a mall, while it might happen to be used by the public, is not a "public use" in this sense. And indeed, the public does not now use the Kelo property which was seized.

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?
Click to expand...

The 5th amendment says, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." We need not, and should not, substitute "public good" for "public use".

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...

See the dissents for Kelo v. New London. They discuss what "public use" should mean, and why that case should not fall under that definition.
 
Ziggurat said:
The 5th amendment says, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." We need not, and should not, substitute "public good" for "public use".
Click to expand...
OK, clearly I meant to say "use" rather than "good" ;) Was Kelo not compensated justly?

Ziggurat said:
See the dissents for Kelo v. New London. They discuss what "public use" should mean, and why that case should not fall under that definition.
Click to expand...
I think I will!
 
Bob Klase said:
And that was a US Supreme Court case?
Click to expand...


Good gosh, you're right. It was a New York Court of Appeals Case. I got mixed up because: 1) its importance is pretty universal; and 2) Cardozo, who wrote the decision, later was elevated to the Supreme Court.
 
Marbury v. Madison clearly takes the prize for having the most impact on US jurisprudence. It is the tree from which all other decisions are the acorns.

For best decisions, Gideon is up there.

The contest for worst decisions is tight. Dredd Scott. Plessy. Kelo. Roe v. Wade. Wickard v. Filburn.

If you want to get right down to an actual turning of our nation twoard totalitarianism, though, you have to go with Schenck.
 
Last edited:
madurobob said:
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...

A constitutional scholar would know more, but it's a directly granted power, and (probably) with the understanding for the use of government buildings or perhaps roads and bridges, rights of way. (Is that the kind of use going on at the time of the Constitution that was understood to be OK?)

Why can Congress give a monopoly on normal mail delivery to the USPO? Why can they draft you into the military and give you a terrible wage? Why can the Sergeant at Arms go handcuff a member of the House and drag them kicking and screaming back for a vote? Direct authorizations by the Constitution.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
The New York Times is a corporation. Interesting to know you don't think they should have the freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

George Will and many others have noted the placidity certain corporations, like the New York Times, have with laws restricting other corporations' speech.

In any case, the Supreme Court made it explicitly clear that decision had nothing to do with the "corp" (body) in "corporation", but derived from the rights of the individuals who owned the corporation. Congress, by the First Amendment, cannot create a law creating a corporation structure, but you may only participate if you give up your right to speech.

As far as money = speech, that is long established and is basically the "press" part of "freedom of speech, or of the press". It's not just a freedom to speak, but to publish, which costs money. And the vast bulk of the money goes to running the modern printing press of advertising on TV. Kings would indeed restrict or outlaw printing presses as an alternate to controlling speech directly.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Bridges and roads are for public use, obviously: they're controlled by the government, and the public uses them.
Click to expand...

While that is currently the case roads, railways and canals were historicaly built and owned by private companies. At least in the UK this required an eminent domain analogue (although it generaly involved a dirrect act of parliment in each case) in order to allow the existance of say turnpikes more than a few miles long.
 
In terms of the one I end up citing the most probably Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co or Golan v. Holder.
 
On Kelo - I think the more troubling aspect is that "taking" must be complete to trigger eminent domain compensation - must take title generally. But the EPA, for example, can prevent you from making any economic use of your property, essentially force you to maintain a "nature preserve" at your own expense, without any compensation.

Helvering v. Davis - massive over-read of "general welfare"
Wickard v. Filburn. like Kelo, contains abuse of rights, but based on a too-expansive reading of the commerce clause.

US vs Davis was a circuit court ruling that essentially throws the 4th amendment in the dumpster. "Administrative" searches by TSA are not restricted to air safety issues, and there is no practical alternative to air travel to exercise the right to assemble.

Olmstead v. United States in the same vein.

Texas v. White - wrt secession. I think that preventing states from secession is about like a mafia lifetime pact. Does the EU prevent states from dropping out "or else" ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom