The Worst U.S. Supreme Court Decisions ever

[Stargleamer]

What do you think is/are the worst U.S. Supreme Court Decisions ever made? I've come up with ten which I list below in chronological order:

1. Dred Scott vs. Sanford, in which the humanity of slaves is denied
2. Plessy vs. Ferguson, in which the Supreme Court gives its OK to segregation
3. Schenk vs. United States, in which pacifist advocacy is regarded to present a "clear and present danger to the United States" and thus prohibited
4. Buck vs. Bell, in which the Supreme Court has no problem with forced sterilization of the retarded
5. Korematsu vs. United States, Hirabayashi vs. United States, in which the Supreme Court gives its OK to the racist justification of American Concentration Camps
6. Harris vs. McCrae, in which the Supreme Court says "tough luck" to women who cannot afford abortions
7. McCleskey vs. Kemp, in which the Supreme Court has no problem with African-Americans being more likely to be sentenced to death in the State of Georgia
8. Bowers vs. Hardwick, in which the Supreme Court rules that harmless sexual expression can be outlawed
9. DeShaney vs. Winnebago County, in which the Supreme Court sees no constitutional violation when a state agency fails to prevent the destruction of an abused child
10. Bush vs. Gore, in which, among other things, the Supreme Court ignores a third party in the case--Florida voters who cast overvotes or undervotes that clearly showed their intent but were nonetheless not counted.

[eyesroll]

1. You've got a good list there

Of course, the one I remember most clearly is Bush v. Gore. What struck me about that (other than the obvious) was the dissent. Normally, the person writing the dissenting opinion closes with, "I respectfully dissent."

Not this time. Ruth Bader Ginsburg simply said, "I dissent."

[Gman]

2. I would move Bush v Gore to #1 or #2

because of the its impact and the implications it has for the future of this country.

If Bush v Gore is #2, then Dred Scott is #1.

[0007]

7. Definitely or tell me why it shouldn't rate as one of the top one...

[trotsky]

9. Scott v. Sanford #1, Bush v. Gore #2.

Scott approved the practice of treating human beings as property.
Bush approved the practice of discarding democracy.

Both are horrible, but Scott is worse, IMHO.

[MAlibdem]

26. I think stealing an election is less important than denying someone's

humanity.

Just my opinion...

[Stargleamer]

8. As far as impact on the country goes...

Bush vs. Gore might only be beat by Dred Scott. I listed my list, though, chronologically rather than in order of most worst to least worst.

[bobbieinok]

3. dates would be helpful/of interest

[Stargleamer]

16. Ok, here's some dates...

1. Dred Scott vs. Sanford (1857)
2. Santa Clarita County vs. Southern Pacific (1886)
3. Plessy vs. Ferguson (1892)
4. Schenk vs. United States (1919)
5. Buck vs. Bell (1927}
6. Hirabayashi vs. United States (1943)and Korematsu vs. United States (1944)
7. Harris vs. McRae (1980)
8. Bowers vs. Hardwick (1986)
9. McCleskey vs. Kemp (1987)
10. DeShaney vs. Winnebago County (1989)
11. Bush vs. Gore (2000)

[anarchy1999]

4. Don't forget "Corporate Personhood" 1886

www.reclaimdemocracy.org

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

from article at site:
TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS
Citizenship and the Charter of Incorporation

snip:

Another blow to citizen constitutional authority came in 1886. The Supreme Court ruled in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad that a private corporation was a natural person under the U.S. Constitution, sheltered by the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.

"There was no history, logic or reason given to support that view, " Supreme Court Justice William 0. Douglas was to write sixty years later.

But the Supreme Court had spoken. Using the 14th Amendment, which had been added to the Constitution to protect freed slaves, the justices struck down hundreds more local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harms. The high court ruled that elected legislators had been taking corporate property 'Without due process of law."

Emboldened, some judges went further, declaring unions were civil and criminal conspiracies, and enjoining workers from striking. Governors and presidents backed judges up with police and armies.

By establishing "new trends in legal doctrine and political-economic theory" permitting "the corporate reorganization of the property production system," the Supreme Court effectively sabotaged blossoming social protest movements against incorporated wealth. Judges positioned the corporation to become "America's representative social institution," "an institutional expression of our way of life."

http://www.nancho.net/bigbody/chrtink1.html#takeover

[andyjackson1828]

6. Good List...

I would add PGA Tour, Inc. v Martin

[Gman]

24. That's not the square grooves case with Ping, is it?

[Stargleamer]

12. You're right...

I should have expanded the list to 11 and added Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific. By declaring corporations persons, the Supreme Court effectively prevented any checks to their rising power, and made it far more difficult to hold them accountable for the wrongs they have carried out. Plus to my knowledge, I don't think this decision was ever officially overturned.

[musiclawyer]

5. None of the above

You forget to mention the 19th century decision that holds corporations on par with individuals under the constitution. I forget the name. Other lawyers, please help me. If that one goes the other way, our country wouldn't be neary as F*cked as it is today.

[On the Road]

14. I've Heard an Interesting Claim About the "Corporate Personhood" Decision

namely that that corporate personhood appears nowhere in the decision, but was inserted in the abstract summarizing it. Nonetheless, it's become accepted law has acquired massive precedent.

[wuushew]

10. Buckley v. Valeo 1976 which enabled current era of corporate facism

While slavery was a monsterous evil, I really cannot fault the Dred Scott ruling as it was an accurate interpretation of the constition. Congress did overstep its athority with the slavery provisions of the Missouri Compromise.

[H2O Man]

11. Great list.

Or perhaps terrible list, to be more accurate. Each one is horrible in and of itself. What sticks out at me is that the Bush v Gore was somewhat different, in that the US Supreme Court had no legal reason to decide the case. It was clearly a state's rights situation, with no federal question. As everyone knows, the Gore legal team should have asked for a re-count of the "overvotes" as well as the "undervotes," not only to document beyond question that Gore won, but to prevent any questions in state or federal court. I still love Vince Bugliosi's "The Betrayal of America," about how the court undermined the constitution and selected their friend's son as president.

[anarchy1999]

29. Yes, you are right. UNPRECEDENTED DECISION! Never to be used again.

That was in the brief. This decision could not be a precedent. That is precisely why Bugliosi took such offence at the decision and called it criminal. It was against all constitutional law. Flawed decision in every direction.

[On the Road]

13. Dred Scott and Plessy/Ferguson Had Very Bad Long-Term Effects

but as a legal case both sides had legitimate legal arguments.

That cannot be said about Bush v. Gore. I believe that will be the regarded as the worst legal decision ever by the Supreme Court. No one, I repeat no one, can defend that decision on legal grounds, even that dipshit Gerald Posner who gets dragged up sometimes to put the best face on it.

Judicial restraint of a difference in philosophy is one thing. Corruption and results-oriented decisions are another.

[mouse7]

15. Dred Scott... worst in last 50 years... Bush v. Gore

Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, then the Union Pacific case that gave the rights of individuls to corporations.

Bush v. Gore was worst recent decision.

[mr_du04]

17. I would say chimpy vs gore

because it had the most inpact true all the others were horrible but, for the most part they only maintained evil that was allready with us while chimp vs gore unleashed a new evil on us all.

[11 Bravo]

18. Excellent list.

Before reading it, the first three cases that came to my mind were your numbers 1, 2, and 10.

[no_hypocrisy]

19. Buck v. Bell permits government-sanctioned forced sterilization of

citizens. Eugenics. Authored by Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.
Famous quote: "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

P.S. Buck has not been overturned and is still enforceable. At least Germany stopped this program after the Third Reich.

[pop goes the weasel]

23. It is because the states,

not the federal government, were the entities that had established eugenics laws, and most of the states begain removing or altering those laws by the 1970s. Do you know of a resource on the current practices? I'd be interested in learning.

Buck v. Bell is truly horrifying. "Three generations of imbeciles is enough," declared Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, approving the Virginia Eugenical Law, based on the exact same model law which won its author, Harry Laughlin, a prize from the Nazis.

[pop goes the weasel]

20. The 1999 ADA cases

in which the Supreme Court ruled that, to be eligible for protection in employment against discrimination against disability, one must be too disabled to work. Can you mitigate your disability by, say, wearing glasses or taking a medication regularly? If so, you can be fired for not meeting the job description, or not considered for the job if you are an applicant.

This was made worse by the Williams decision in 2002, wherein the Court found that it is OK to fire a person with a non-remediable disability as long as that person can brush their own teeth. (Because, you know, there is so much money to be made in the lucrative career of performing personal hygiene.)

Therefore, we can all be fired for having a disability (such as near-sightedness) that can be corrected, and we can be fired for having a disability (such as arthritis) which can not be corrected.

[Merrick]

21. I agree with anarchy1999

The "corporate personhood" decision of 1886 between Southern Pacific Railroad and Santa Clara County has had the most profoundly detrimental impact on the nation and the world, and should be far and away #1.

[anarchy1999]

25. Thank you and you are on it.

I believe 2nd worst was the illegal decision, that "we the people" let them, the Supreme Court get away with in December of 2000. I stand in Vincent Bugliosi's court of world opinion. Where is that guy these days? We need for he and John Dean to get together and take down these thugs. Calling all heros, heroines and patriots. It is time to march, personally, I don't think we have any time left to loose.

[FeebMaster]

22. US v Miller 1939

was pretty horrendous.

[troublemaker]

27. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=413&invol=15

Explicitly subjecting First Amendment protections to majoritarian regional standards of taste. This is the most offensive First Amendment decision since WWI.

[indepat]

28. Bush vs. Gore is right up there but for its time, Korematsu is also

high on the list in my book. My recollection is the Supreme Court, with only one dissenting opinion, ruled that it was constitutional to incarcerate people of Japanese descent solely on the basis of their ethnicity. Some 120,000 persons of Japanese descent (down to 1/16th), including some 70,000 who were native-born American citizens not even suspected of having committed or about to commit a crime, were sent to, yes, concentration camps. Justice Jackson cast the only dissenting vote, but what did know considering it was he who enunciated what constituted war crimes during the Nuremberg trials, for example, wars of aggression, but we now know the neocons have wholly rejected what he proclaimed.

[dpibel]

30. No Ranking Required

Edited to correct a grammatical error.

Each of these decisions (and a great many very like them) represents a suppurating pustule on the body politic. It's hard to pick which festering abcess is the nastiest.

What this does represent is an interesting exercise in examining the historic role of the Supreme Court. Contrary to what many of us grew up believing, the golden age of civil rights and protection of disfavored minority viewpoints--from about the time FDR appointed William O. Douglas to the Court until the end of the Warren Court or a little after--represented a momentary aberration. (Remember: FDR's court-packing scheme didn't result from the Court paying too much attention to the interests of the little people.)

For most of its history, the Supreme Court has stood as a bastion of protection for the status quo; a beacon of freedom for the threatened members of the ruling class; a protector of the rights of the already rich and powerful. There was a shining instant when it appeared that the Court would take up the matter of breathing some meaning into the Bill of Rights. That moment is gone, and the Court is back to business as usual, doing what the other branches of government do, which is comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted.

/rant

[Catherine Vincent]

31. I say Bush vs. Gore but you left off one.

Where they said a sitting president can be sued by a bimbo.

[anarchy1999]

32. A much deserved kick back to the top -

Know your friends and your enemies.

The courts will be our friend or our enemy.

[leftofthedial]

33. Bush v. Gore negated the vote

it doesn't get any worse than that.