Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread | Page 2 | TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
Bestbank Tiger
Tulane Fan
Landmass
Member since Jan 2005
20090 posts

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).





Back to top
Bestbank Tiger
Tulane Fan
Landmass
Member since Jan 2005
20090 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.






Back to top
FightinTigersDammit
Northwestern St. Fan
Farmerville LA
Member since Mar 2006
7138 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.





Back to top
  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?






Back to top
Tigerlaff
LSU Fan
Member since Jan 2010
10071 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


Back to top
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?





Back to top
Turbeauxdog
LSU Fan
Member since Aug 2004
5731 posts

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread


quote:

How would you tweak the system


Get rid of common law for starters.






Back to top
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.





Back to top
LSURussian
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Feb 2005
82993 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?






Back to top
  Replies (0)
BBONDS25
LSU Fan
Member since Mar 2008
16439 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


Back to top
Turbeauxdog
LSU Fan
Member since Aug 2004
5731 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.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
TrueTiger
LSU Fan
Chicken's most valuable
Member since Sep 2004
10786 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.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
shinerfan
LSU Fan
Duckworld(Earth-616)
Member since Sep 2009
5780 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.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Vegas Bengal
Member since Feb 2008
25849 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.






Back to top
Tigerlaff
LSU Fan
Member since Jan 2010
10071 posts

re: Wiki's Ultimate Supreme Court Absurdity Thread


Hahaha oh Randy...





Back to top
  Replies (0)
BBONDS25
LSU Fan
Member since Mar 2008
16439 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.







Back to top
  Replies (0)
Bestbank Tiger
Tulane Fan
Landmass
Member since Jan 2005
20090 posts

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.






Back to top
  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.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Patrick O Rly
New Orleans Saints Fan
y u do dis?
Member since Aug 2011
38223 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.








Back to top
  Replies (0)


Back to top