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