Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread | Page 2 | TigerDroppings.com
Posted by
Message
Bestbank Tiger
Tulane Fan
Landmass
Member since Jan 2005
21898 posts
Online

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread

Wasn't there a case in 1942 where they ruled it was constitutional to force Jehovah's Witnesses to say the Pledge of Allegiance? (I think they reversed that decision a year later but it's been a long time since I took Dr. Haynie's class).


Bestbank Tiger
Tulane Fan
Landmass
Member since Jan 2005
21898 posts
Online

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread
quote:

If it is or was part of the actual, physical you then it involves being forced to give evidence against yourself.


Or the fingerprinting/DNA testing is a search, which is constitutional as long as a proper warrant is obtained.


FightinTigersDammit
Northwestern St. Fan
Farmerville LA
Member since Mar 2006
8586 posts

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread
The courts have been leaning on Wickard like a drunk on a lamp pole to do damn near anything they want.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
WikiTiger
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2007
40721 posts

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread
quote:

Wasn't there a case in 1942 where they ruled it was constitutional to force Jehovah's Witnesses to say the Pledge of Allegiance? (I think they reversed that decision a year later but it's been a long time since I took Dr. Haynie's class).


Nice catch!

LINK

So...let's break that down.

Essentially, the SCOTUS, in all its wisdom rules in 1940 that the constitution allows public schools to force Jehovah's Witnesses to salute the flag and say the pledge.


And then, miraculously, just 3 years later, without the words in the constitution actually changing, the SCOTUS, in all its wisdom rules that the constitution protects the free speech rights of students and doesn't allow public schools to force them to say the pledge or salute the flag.




AND WE'RE SUPPOSED TO TAKE THESE CLOWNS SERIOUSLY?


I mean, come on people, don't you see what a farce this institution is?


Tigerlaff
LSU Fan
Member since Jan 2010
10620 posts

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread
Controversial suggestion here:

Brown v. Board of Education

The brunt of that entire opinion is simply "Well, racism sucks. The people may have voted for it, stare decisis is supposed to be binding, states' rights and all that, but we're just going to do what we want... because."

I'm glad separate but equal ended, but their reasoning was a pure appeal to emotion.
This post was edited on 6/25 at 9:38 pm


TheLankiestLawyer
Member since Jun 2013
1803 posts

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread
What's the alternative? How would you tweak the system?


Turbeauxdog
LSU Fan
Member since Aug 2004
6007 posts

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread
quote:

How would you tweak the system


Get rid of common law for starters.


TheLankiestLawyer
Member since Jun 2013
1803 posts

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread
As a practitioner in Louisiana, I see no problem with that.


LSURussian
LSU Fan
Member since Feb 2005
85143 posts

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread
quote:

don't you see what a farce this institution is?

What would be your better solution?


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
BBONDS25
LSU Fan
Member since Mar 2008
17557 posts

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread
Professor Trahan would be proud of you.
This post was edited on 6/25 at 9:41 pm


Turbeauxdog
LSU Fan
Member since Aug 2004
6007 posts

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread
quote:

As a practitioner in Louisiana, I see no problem with that.


I would welcome a more informed legal opinion on the matter, but it seems to me having to justify each ruling to the actual text of the law would make it a lot harder for the court to get rid of some of the bull shite they get away with today.

Of course I could be completely misunderstanding the distinction.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
TrueTiger
LSU Fan
Chicken's most valuable
Member since Sep 2004
12522 posts

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread
quote:

And then, miraculously, just 3 years later, without the words in the constitution actually changing, the SCOTUS, in all its wisdom rules that the constitution protects the free speech rights of students and doesn't allow public schools to force them to say the pledge or salute the flag.




AND WE'RE SUPPOSED TO TAKE THESE CLOWNS SERIOUSLY?



It is really hard to do when the guiding principles are supposed to be the "rule of law" but, we consistently see the "rule of man" actually applied.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
shinerfan
LSU Fan
Duckworld(Earth-616)
Member since Sep 2009
6606 posts

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread
quote:

If it is or was part of the actual, physical you then it involves being forced to give evidence against yourself.


Or the fingerprinting/DNA testing is a search, which is constitutional as long as a proper warrant is obtained.





I just don't see how its not being compelled to give evidence against yourself. Isn't compulsion the entire purpose of a warrant?

I'm mostly approaching this from the direction of a kid in Sunday School wanting to talk about dinosaurs, though. I'm not really wanting to scrap it all.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
Vegas Bengal
Member since Feb 2008
26344 posts

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread
quote:

Professor Trahan would be proud of you.

He was in my class. He transferred (for whatever reason) from Harvard in our second year. Well of course he shot up to no. 1 in the class which did not sit well with former no.1 (who was the only student to take tests with a typewriter).

Anyway, typewriter boy bitched and moaned bc Trajan didn't have to go through the difficulty of 1st year and be saddled with 1st year usual lower grades. So they made co-number 1s, which is as ridiculous as taking tests on a typewriter.

I had him in Security Devices. Rubin would ask various people for the answer with no luck then always say "Mr. Trahan?" And got his answer.

Sorry typewriter boy if you're reading this.


Tigerlaff
LSU Fan
Member since Jan 2010
10620 posts

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread
Hahaha oh Randy...


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
BBONDS25
LSU Fan
Member since Mar 2008
17557 posts

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread
Trahan is the man. Great professor , the Harvard thing is wierd. But he is a true civil jurist.



Replies (0)
Replies (0)
Bestbank Tiger
Tulane Fan
Landmass
Member since Jan 2005
21898 posts
Online

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread
quote:

I'm glad separate but equal ended, but their reasoning was a pure appeal to emotion.


Brown was the right decision, but I agree that the reasoning left a lot to be desired. They should have just straight up admitted that Plessy was a bad decision. I'm not against precedent having a role in deciding a case. It just shouldn't be locked in forever.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
los angeles tiger
LSU Fan
1,601 miles from Tiger Stadium
Member since Oct 2003
55976 posts

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread
quote:

Professor Trahan would be proud of you


He and his wife Kendra are great people. Brought back a lot of good memories of my days with them at LSU.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
Patrick O Rly
New Orleans Saints Fan
y u do dis?
Member since Aug 2011
38224 posts

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread
quote:

As someone with similar views as Wiki, I'll say that my way of interpreting the Constitution would be to burn it and dance around its ashes.


Image: http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9135pCT8e1rry9ec.gif


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
Page 2 of 2

Back to top

Follow TigerDroppings
Follow us on social media and get the latest updates.

FacebookTwitterInstagram