Supreme Court decision naming

[tahnan]

OK, so there's this meme going around:

As evidenced by Katie Couric, Sarah Palin is unable to name any Supreme Court Case other than Roe v. Wade.

The Rules: Post info about ONE Supreme Court decision, modern or historical your lj. (Any decision, as long as it’s not Roe v. Wade.)
Let's be clear on this. I hate Sarah Palin, as a politician and very

Comments

[qaqaq]

Gore v. Bush is the first one I would have named, but somehow I wouldn't expect Palin to go that route.

[tahnan]

Not a good one to say you disagree with, no. I wouldn't even expect Obama or Biden to cite that one as a decision they disagree with, since it's likely o be on partisan rather than legal grounds.

[luckylefty]

Nonsense! I've read Bush v. Gore, and the quality of the argument in the majority opinion is among the worst I've ever read, down there with Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Hardwick v. Bowers. Even the opinion itself is so embarrassed about it's own logic that it has a clause saying "Don't cite this as precedent for any other cases, OK?"

It's true that if Obama cited this case, people would perceive his dislike of the decision as being partisan. But the fact that the case had basically no legal basis for being decided the way it was still remains true.

[tahnan]

Well...OK. Then again, that doesn't give it quite the same Roe v. Wade, "here's a decision that I disagree with and thus it needs to change" status.

[tavella]

Bush vs. Gore. And there was plenty of easy game available for her -- Kelo, the Exxon case, or she could go classic and give out a shout to her homies in the antiabortion base with Dred Scott. Seriously, no one likes Dred Scott!

[tahnan]

Yes, yes, yes, Dred Scott. But like I said, it's a little easy to cite that as a case you disagree with; and in the context of "name another case you disagree with", I think there's implicitly a "...that's still in force..." in there.

But yes, Kelo v. New London is one I disagree with; Palin might not, since it's there for the benefit of business. Michelle did mention the Exxon case, too. It's certainly the case that she should have been able to name something she disagreed with; it's just not quite as easy as the responses like "duh, Brown v. Board of Education".

[selinker]

Off the top of my head I can name four more I disagree with:

1. The Dred Scott decision. I don't think slavery should be legal. (Maybe that doesn't count, but I think it's the #1 I-disagree-with-this case.)
2. The Bakke decision. This ruled against fixed quotas for school admissions. I'm Mike, and I'm a quotaholic.
3. Bush v. Gore. Eight years later, it's still the worst thing the court did since Plessy.
4. The Napster-like case (I can't remember the name), which ruled peer-to-peer sharing software wasn't legal. (I have vastly changed my mind on this, as I will be writing in my journal in the next couple days).

Give me five minutes and a computer, and I can probably name ten more. But here's the good news: I don't yet have a lot from the Rehnquist/Roberts era, because they've actually been holding up most of the rights I value. I'm sure I need Barack Obama to win this election to be able to say that in ten more years.

Mike

[selinker]

I see we were all typing at once. :^)

[selinker]

And after looking it up, the service was called Grokster.

[tinhorn2]

MGM v Grokster. I do some copyright work, so am very familiar with it. Note that the Court did *not* rule that peer-to-peer was illegal, but merely allowed a lawsuit against Grokster to go forward on a contributory infringement theory of liability. The main holding of the main opinion was:

"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties."

The case is *very* unclear as to what happens when the technology *can* be used to infringe, but is marketed to be used for substantial non-infringing purposes.

While many people viewed (and view) the case as significant, probably as many (myself included) see it as changing very little from previous law, other than to muddy up some of the standards with multiple opinions that focus on different elements, tests, and hypothetical.

[tablesaw]

One of the things that struck me when I first heard that excerpt was how clumsily she communicated. They have been a whole lot of people dodging "name a specific case" questions for a while now, because it can open up a lot of leverage into Supreme Court appointees and political views. But the way Palin communicated it "I can't think of any" instead of "I'd rather not say" was very clumsy, and she already seemed flustered from earlier in the interview.

For my own, the list that I could have named off the top of my head is Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Kelo v. New London, and Bush v. Gore. I could name more now, because I've been reminded about various ones I'd forgotten in all the memeage.

[tahnan]

OK seriously enough with the Dred Scott, folks. See above; above; and above.

But-yes. Again, I think the meme is being somewhat unfair to Palin. But there was also zero doubt in my mind that her answer was evasive and clumsy. She said something, and when pressed, repeated the same talking point, i.e. "things should be addressed at the state level", without any indication that she knew of any relevant decisions that should have been decided by the states.

[selinker]

Oh, I forgot about Kelo v. New London! That's a freakin' monstrosity.

[tahnan]

Kelo v. New London is a decision I find just stunning. A decision that says "public good" takes priority over private ownership, and that a business's needs take priority over an individual's rights. How did anyone, on either side of the aisle, think that was a good idea?

[eyelessgame]

fumbling deer-in-headlights responses

That's a bit lower-48-judiced of you, don't you think? Her responses have been moose-in-headlights.