- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: In your opinion, what's the worst supreme court decision ever made?
Posted on 7/23/19 at 8:35 am to F73ME
Posted on 7/23/19 at 8:35 am to F73ME
ACA was a travesty on every front.
It's constitutional except for the parts that aren't constitutional
It's protected as a tax even though it's not really a tax and was never voted on under the rules for passing taxes
Just a complete shite-show from the very beginning.
It's constitutional except for the parts that aren't constitutional
It's protected as a tax even though it's not really a tax and was never voted on under the rules for passing taxes
Just a complete shite-show from the very beginning.
1
Posted on 7/23/19 at 8:37 am to F73ME
lots of good bad cases from which to choose. Kelo certainly deserves mention.
I would go with the series of cases that expanded the Commerce Clause and those that created and expanded the incorporation. doctrine.
I would go with the series of cases that expanded the Commerce Clause and those that created and expanded the incorporation. doctrine.
Posted on 7/23/19 at 8:37 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
Clearly you never read the Citizens United decision.
Nope.
It was a bad decision. Or more precisely it was a decision that benefitted other people, not me.
Haven't read the original Roe vs. Wade decision either. That one was bad too.
Have a nice day. Hey uh, maybe you oughtta move somewhere where people dig the cut of your jib?
If you are a libertarian type, don't know where that would be. West Coast doesn't seem too friendly to that these days.
But in the end, we are holding you back. You need to be somewhere with all the other people like you.
And what wonders you will create! Meanwhile the rest of us will just have to make do without your Roarkian prowess.
Well if you aren't a libertarian, ignore most of this post. Just get to Portland, OR ASAP.
Posted on 7/23/19 at 8:38 am to udtiger
quote:
Look at the The Federalist Papers. The judicial branch was intended to be the weakest branch. It certainly was not intended to the the ultimate and final authority as to what is, and isn't constitutional.
I’ve them all multiple times and they don’t support your position when taken in total. Plus, Congress had already granted the lower courts judicial review over certain matters a decade before Marbury. And when you look at the political theory behind our Separation of Powers system, the entire purpose of the separate judiciary is to be an independent arbitrator of legal construction and interpretation; it makes no sense when working through that framework to exclude constitutional law from that system.
Posted on 7/23/19 at 8:38 am to FearlessFreep
quote:
Hard to believe that was a 9-0 decision
FDR court packing scandal
Posted on 7/23/19 at 8:40 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
Juridical personhood has been around since Justintine. It would be an economical and social disaster to do away with it. In fact, it’s probably one of the fundamental social constructs responsible for the success of Western Civilization.
Agreed... But it would be required as a prerequisite for C.U. to be overturned. I say that to demonstrate the simple mindedness of the argument again C.U.
Posted on 7/23/19 at 8:41 am to udtiger
The federalist papers are people’s argument s for a constitution.
What happens when they get in the room and make 10000 compromises with the anti federalists is the constitution.
Simply put if the SCOTUS didn’t have judicial review what would it have actually done? It’s an important part of checks and balances. Probably THE most important part.
What happens when they get in the room and make 10000 compromises with the anti federalists is the constitution.
Simply put if the SCOTUS didn’t have judicial review what would it have actually done? It’s an important part of checks and balances. Probably THE most important part.
This post was edited on 7/23/19 at 8:44 am
Posted on 7/23/19 at 8:46 am to F73ME
Roberts
Posted on 7/23/19 at 8:47 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
I’ve them all multiple times and they don’t support your position when taken in total. Plus, Congress had already granted the lower courts judicial review over certain matters a decade before Marbury. And when you look at the political theory behind our Separation of Powers system, the entire purpose of the separate judiciary is to be an independent arbitrator of legal construction and interpretation; [quote]it makes no sense when working through that framework to exclude constitutional law from that system.
Oh God. I sense you are someone who has fried their brain reading legal mumbo-jumbo, rewiring synapses until you believe nonsense written so dryly that it is in danger of spontaneous combustion has some profound significance independent of what some guys with guns say it has (we Muggles call them "The Man").
quote:
it makes no sense when working through that framework to exclude constitutional law from that system.
There is a truth embedded in this quote I don't expect you to get:
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."
Posted on 7/23/19 at 8:47 am to Vecchio Cane
quote:
ACA was a travesty on every front.
That isn’t true. It shutdown an avenue for extending the power of the Commerce Clause.
Posted on 7/23/19 at 8:48 am to CelticDog
quote:Its funny how dems never had a problem with union leadership donating at a 90% clip to dem candidates without the consent of union members, who were forced to pay their dues regardless.
Companies can contribute to and effectively buy federal elections as if a person because legal fiction that companies are persons for other purposes.
Posted on 7/23/19 at 8:49 am to AggieHank86
Buck vs. Bell
Posted on 7/23/19 at 8:49 am to Antonio Moss
Wickard easily
I knew it was bad when Devlin seemed extra giddy
I knew it was bad when Devlin seemed extra giddy
Posted on 7/23/19 at 8:50 am to F73ME
Grutter v. Bollinger
It has unleashed clearly racist and Unconstitutional “diversity programs” throughout all aspects of our society and has made whole classes of individuals believe that they are victims of the white devil.
It has unleashed clearly racist and Unconstitutional “diversity programs” throughout all aspects of our society and has made whole classes of individuals believe that they are victims of the white devil.
This post was edited on 7/23/19 at 8:56 am
Posted on 7/23/19 at 8:52 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
That isn’t true. It shutdown an avenue for extending the power of the Commerce Clause.
Posted on 7/23/19 at 8:57 am to NIH
quote:
I knew it was bad when Devlin seemed extra giddy
No doubt. I liked Devlin; thought he was a great teacher. But he was a guy that viewed with amazement whether a decision was brilliantly scripted into an end result as opposed to whether it was an objectively good or bad decision.
Posted on 7/23/19 at 9:03 am to F73ME
quote:
My vote is Wickard v Filburn, but I'm looking to educate myself on other horrible decisions.
ETA:
Summary: Dramatically expanded power of the commerce clause of fed. government. Centered around a farmer being penalized for growing too much wheat due to restrictions/regs. at the time, even though he was using all the wheat as feedstock for his own animals on his own farm.
Definitely Wickard. None of the subsequent asinine rulings would exist without the tremendous expansion of federal power via the commerce clause being distorted in that case.
Posted on 7/23/19 at 9:05 am to F73ME
Dred Scott
Buck v. Bell
One of my personal least favorites is Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Pfeifer dealing with calculating inflation on damages for lost future income. I just hate it because I’m a law student and it’s one of those cases that messed with my head.
Buck v. Bell
One of my personal least favorites is Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Pfeifer dealing with calculating inflation on damages for lost future income. I just hate it because I’m a law student and it’s one of those cases that messed with my head.
This post was edited on 7/23/19 at 9:12 am
Posted on 7/23/19 at 9:07 am to ShermanTxTiger
Both were an abortion. A national abortion.
Posted on 7/23/19 at 9:09 am to F73ME
Came here to post Wickard, at least as far as yet-to-be-overturned precedent is concerned.
Sebelious (ACA) is awful, KELO is terrible as well, but how about we go old school to McCullough v. Maryland justifying the creation of a national bank because it would be necessary and proper for paying salaries and collecting taxes (two things a bank is not needed to do)
Sebelious (ACA) is awful, KELO is terrible as well, but how about we go old school to McCullough v. Maryland justifying the creation of a national bank because it would be necessary and proper for paying salaries and collecting taxes (two things a bank is not needed to do)
This post was edited on 7/23/19 at 9:13 am
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News