Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread | TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
WikiTiger
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2007
40721 posts

Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread


So...most of you probably realize that the Supreme Court is a complete joke. Their ability to manipulate plain language to mean things it clearly doesn't mean is unsurpassed. Rational people should be sickened by some of the rulings of the Supreme Court, and certainly no respect is deserved for the institution or members of it.

Some examples of which I speak:

Wickard v. Filburn: A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption in Ohio. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.



Nix v. Hedden: the tomato should be classified under customs regulations as a vegetable rather than a fruit. The Court's unanimous opinion held that the Tariff Act of 1883 used the ordinary meaning of the words "fruit" and "vegetable," under which a tomato is classified as a vegetable, instead of the technical botanical meaning.


Multiple cases on Obscenity: The first amendment clearly states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." And yet, somehow the geniuses of the Supreme Court have interpreted that to mean that laws prohibiting obscenity are constitutional. The same goes for libel and slander laws.

Korematsu v. United States: The 5th amendment clearly states: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

And yet somehow they ruled that Japanese internment during WWII was constitutional.

Selective Draft Law Cases: The 13th amendment clearly states: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

And yet the Supreme Court has ruled that a military draft is constitutional.


Kelo v. City of New London: a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.







Your thoughts? Any thing else I should list?

FWIW, I thought about listing the Obamacare Individual Mandate but it isn't as blatantly absurd as the examples I listed above, although I agree that it is a pretty fricking awful ruling.



This post was edited on 6/25 at 10:54 am



Back to top
Share:
CITWTT
LSU Fan
baton rouge
Member since Sep 2005
31765 posts

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread


Dumbass you do realize that the cases cited by you are separated by decades in some cases and many courts with each ones diiference in make up of the body of nine.





Back to top
Turbeauxdog
LSU Fan
Member since Aug 2004
5711 posts
 Online 

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread


quote:

Dumbass you do realize that the cases cited by you are separated by decades in some cases and many courts with each ones diiference in make up of the body of nine.


Funny thing is you are trying to attack his view point, but are actually supporting it.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
NaturalBeam
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2007
13108 posts

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread


When you start to think of the Supreme Court, not as the Supreme Court, but rather as a perpetual collection of 9 government workers who only work half the year, it gets a little easier to fathom





Back to top
  Replies (0)
upgrayedd
Louisiana Tech Fan
Further on up the road
Member since Mar 2013
7692 posts
 Online 

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread


I don't lean quite as far towards anarchy as you do, but I enjoy your provocation of thought.





Back to top
  Replies (0)
Rickety Cricket
Navy Fan
Premium Member
Member since Aug 2007
34804 posts
 Online 

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread


You forgot the abortion that is Kelo v. City of New London





Back to top
TrueTiger
LSU Fan
Chicken's most valuable
Member since Sep 2004
10292 posts
 Online 

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread


That's a good list of notorious decisions.

I would add Dredd Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Antonio Moss
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Mar 2006
28832 posts

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread


quote:

Kelo v. City of New London


Top 5 worst.

You can add a plethora of decision during FDR's Presidency (like Wickard.) It was FDR's illegitimate and unconstitutional pressure on the Court which caused those decisions to be made.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
catholictigerfan
LSU Fan
Member since Oct 2009
39143 posts

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread


will read and comment later busy day for me.

but wiki

always great to have you on the poli board.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
alajones
LSU Fan
Hell
Member since Oct 2005
22112 posts

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread


Surprised you didn't bring up the Switch in time that saved 9.





Back to top
  Replies (0)
Tigah in the ATL
LSU Fan
Atlanta
Member since Feb 2005
24941 posts
 Online 

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread


So your position is that only the way you would interpret it (based I assume on your extensive knowledge of law) would be the non-absurd way?

Thinking there is a single way to interpret the often conflicting sections of the the Constitution is just trying to dumb down the world.






Back to top
upgrayedd
Louisiana Tech Fan
Further on up the road
Member since Mar 2013
7692 posts
 Online 

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread


quote:

So your position is that only the way you would interpret it (based I assume on your extensive knowledge of law) would be the non-absurd way?

Thinking there is a single way to interpret the often conflicting sections of the the Constitution is just trying to dumb down the world.








Back to top
  Replies (0)
Gmorgan4982
LSU Fan
Member since May 2005
99525 posts

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread


quote:

Nix v. Hedden
When a government feels the need to provide a legal distinction between a fruit and a vegetable, things are going in the wrong direction.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Gmorgan4982
LSU Fan
Member since May 2005
99525 posts

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread


quote:

Thinking there is a single way to interpret the often conflicting sections of the the Constitution is just trying to dumb down the world.
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.



This post was edited on 6/25 at 2:10 pm


Back to top
Tigah in the ATL
LSU Fan
Atlanta
Member since Feb 2005
24941 posts
 Online 

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.
I thought to comment on the absurdity of an anarchist posting on constitutional interpretation






Back to top
  Replies (0)
shinerfan
LSU Fan
Duckworld(Earth-616)
Member since Sep 2009
5737 posts

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread


quote:

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself



By any honest reading drug testing, fingerprinting. blood type comparisons, DNA testing, etc., are expressly forbidden for use in criminal proceedings.






Back to top
WikiTiger
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2007
40721 posts

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread


quote:

So your position is that only the way you would interpret it (based I assume on your extensive knowledge of law) would be the non-absurd way?


I'm just pointing out clear cases of absurdity where words are said to mean things they don't mean.

If you are arguing that the words "Congress shall make no law.." actually mean "Congress shall makes [some] laws..." well then I don't really know what to say except that you aren't an intellectually honest person.

But everyone here already knows that about you.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
TheLankiestLawyer
Member since Jun 2013
1803 posts

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread


I disagree with that. Those things you listed are all physical characteristics. Bearing witness against yourself connotes a verbal or written admission.





Back to top
shinerfan
LSU Fan
Duckworld(Earth-616)
Member since Sep 2009
5737 posts

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread


quote:

Those things you listed are all physical characteristics.



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


quote:

Bearing witness against yourself connotes a verbal or written admission.



The text doesn't offer the smallest hint of those limitations.






Back to top
Semaphore
Oregon State Fan
a former French colony
Member since Jan 2013
275 posts

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread


Roe v. Wade deserves mention here.

It was a poorly reasoned decision regardless of where you stand on abortion morally.






Back to top


Back to top