Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

So far the recent decision about eminent domain but admittedly haven't studied the opinions rendered is my choice.

I would think many on the left would say the decision in the 2000 presidential election.

Roe v. Wade seems to be the most hated one for the right but not sure. Abortion is such a thorny issue that it's hard for me to want to do away with it entirely in my mind.

I can think of a few others but for the most part I don't see that many decisions rendered by the Supreme Court that really "stick in my craw" but I concede maybe I'm not paying attention [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. I do think the president should have the right to appoint "qualified" jurists to the court and that these appointments deserve an up and down vote. Qualified is open to debate. Signing out for the time being I'll be back tonight most likely.

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

Atkins death penalty case. I don't particulurly care about the death penalty (it seems fairly ineffective in modern America), but the logic used in the decision can make you a little sick to your stomach.

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

Korematsu (relocation of 11,000+ Japanese Americans to prision camps was constitutionally permissible) was an absolute abomination.

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

[ QUOTE ]
Korematsu (relocation of 11,000+ Japanese Americans to prision camps was constitutionally permissible) was an absolute abomination.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

Dred Scott Case.

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

[ QUOTE ]
Dred Scott Case.

[/ QUOTE ]


Damn, beat me to it

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

Dred Scott

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

Other than the obvious blunders like Korematsu and Plessy v. Ferguson, I have to go with:

Wickard v. Filburn.

Wickard is one of the fundamental pillars of law that continues to justify the undending drug war which is an atrocity against our freedoms.

natedogg

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

Miranda vs. The State of Arizona.

Why should the guilty be allowed to have a lawyer present during police questioning? After all they are guilty.

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

Milliken v. Bradley

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

Marbury v. Madison

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wickard v. Filburn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wickard has been a precedent for so many other poor decisions that the cascade effect has to be considered.

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wickard v. Filburn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wickard has been a precedent for so many other poor decisions that the cascade effect has to be considered.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a bunch of Potheads we have on this forum.

You guys are really just upset at Gonzales v. Raich. Damn the government for not letting you grow pot for your "personal use."

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

Last years Hiibel decision. In the twisted game of redefining language, the Court essentially stated that "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" were the same. Link.

Great Responses
 

Truly enlightening, appreciated and my thanks as well. Don't feel compelled to stop at this juncture though.

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wickard v. Filburn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wickard has been a precedent for so many other poor decisions that the cascade effect has to be considered.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a bunch of Potheads we have on this forum.

You guys are really just upset at Gonzales v. Raich. Damn the government for not letting you grow pot for your "personal use."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, we all must've missed class when they told us that cannabis users are the lowest form of life. Too bad or we would've chosen much more dangerous, legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco instead.

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wickard v. Filburn.

Wickard is one of the fundamental pillars of law that continues to justify the undending drug war which is an atrocity against our freedoms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just so that everyone here is clear: Wickard is a Commerce Clause case, not a drug war case.

The drug war didn't even exist at the time Wickard came down.

The labor movement, however, DID exist -- and if you want to understand why so many "conservatives" absolutely HATE Wickard v. Filburn, you need to look at it as it relates to the labor movement and its FDR-era victories.

Or, to put it another way : if you want to attack the drug war, there are a thousand easier ways to do it then by trying to strip the entire federal government of its Commerce Clause authority. BUT : if your actual goal is to destroy New Deal labor reforms, there is almost NO easier way than by attacking Wickard and its associated cases (upon which those reforms rest). If you look at it in that light, it's really not too hard to figure out which one is the true goal.


q/q

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Wickard v. Filburn.

Wickard is one of the fundamental pillars of law that continues to justify the undending drug war which is an atrocity against our freedoms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just so that everyone here is clear: Wickard is a Commerce Clause case, not a drug war case.

The drug war didn't even exist at the time Wickard came down.

The labor movement, however, DID exist -- and if you want to understand why so many "conservatives" absolutely HATE Wickard v. Filburn, you need to look at it as it relates to the labor movement and its FDR-era victories.

Or, to put it another way : if you want to attack the drug war, there are a thousand easier ways to do it then by trying to strip the entire federal government of its Commerce Clause authority. BUT : if your actual goal is to destroy New Deal labor reforms, there is almost NO easier way than by attacking Wickard and its associated cases (upon which those reforms rest). If you look at it in that light, it's really not too hard to figure out which one is the true goal.


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

And if you support BOTH ending the drug war AND eliminating New Deal nonsense, Wickard v. Filburn is easily one of the worst cases of the century.

natedogg

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wickard v. Filburn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wickard has been a precedent for so many other poor decisions that the cascade effect has to be considered.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a bunch of Potheads we have on this forum.

You guys are really just upset at Gonzales v. Raich. Damn the government for not letting you grow pot for your "personal use."

[/ QUOTE ]

As a federalist you of all posters should be aware that Wickard v. Filburn is your nemesis. Even though without you might have to live in a nation where some states allow their citizens to grow and smoke pot.

I don't know, undoing the total devastation of most of our civil rights might not be worth it if it means we have live in a world where some US states have legalized pot... hmmmmmmm

natedogg

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

The medical marijuana case and the eminent domain case. They were wrong on both.

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wickard v. Filburn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wickard has been a precedent for so many other poor decisions that the cascade effect has to be considered.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a bunch of Potheads we have on this forum.

You guys are really just upset at Gonzales v. Raich. Damn the government for not letting you grow pot for your "personal use."

[/ QUOTE ]

You really are an authoritarian and have much more in common with thugs like Castro than you realize.

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

[ QUOTE ]
And if you support BOTH ending the drug war AND eliminating New Deal nonsense, Wickard v. Filburn is easily one of the worst cases of the century.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just so long as everyone here is clear that your primary target is the New Deal.


q/q

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

I was referring to the overextension of the commerce clause and what it did to states rights. The marijuana thing means nothing to me.

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
And if you support BOTH ending the drug war AND eliminating New Deal nonsense, Wickard v. Filburn is easily one of the worst cases of the century.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just so long as everyone here is clear that your primary target is the New Deal.


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

The New Deal paved the way for the drug war.

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
And if you support BOTH ending the drug war AND eliminating New Deal nonsense, Wickard v. Filburn is easily one of the worst cases of the century.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just so long as everyone here is clear that your primary target is the New Deal.


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

And I guess you're making it clear you're willing to sacrifice any amount of freedom and any number of citizens as long as broad federal power is preserved for socialist legislation.

And you're wrong, I despise the drug war more than social security, but just barely.

natedogg

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

[ QUOTE ]
The New Deal paved the way for the drug war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only in the sense that the New Deal built the middle class in this country, which then turned toward increasingly reactionary politics.


q/q

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

The new deal didn't build the middle class. Free enterprise did. Businesses did. The new deal was a failed depression era social program whos deficiet based programs like social security threaten to bankrupt our next generation.

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

[ QUOTE ]
The new deal didn't build the middle class. Free enterprise did. Businesses did. The new deal was a failed depression era social program whos deficiet based programs like social security threaten to bankrupt our next generation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Smart man. You nailed it.

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

[ QUOTE ]
The new deal didn't build the middle class. Free enterprise did. Businesses did. The new deal was a failed depression era social program whos deficiet based programs like social security threaten to bankrupt our next generation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Compare the fortunes of the middle class during 1890-1920 vs the middle class of 1940-1970. It's simply no contest. By any measure, the progressive policies of the New Deal proved FAR better for the middle class than the laissez-faire policies of the era that preceded this (and which ultimately culminated in the Great Depression, bread lines, and the ruination of millions).


q/q

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

Yeah, there weren't any food lines during World War II. There wasn't rationing or anything.

Could it have been a war?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Compare the fortunes of the middle class during 1890-1920 vs the middle class of 1940-1970. It's simply no contest.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think it might have been the war?

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

The war prompted growth in the 1940s. And growth in the 60s was prompted by JFKs tax cuts. Of course, oppressive taxation and government regulation did manage to destroy our economy by the 70s.

The New Deal had failed by 1938. Having fixed none of the structual problems in the economy FDR had run out of money by that time. Had WWII not saved us, he would have gone down in history as a horrible president.

Lastly, the protectionist and xenophobic trade policy endoresed in the Smoot-Holley Act (may be mispelling) led to the breakdown in global trade and greatly increased the depth of the depression. Of course, Herbert Hoover's tax increase in the early 30s didn't help. Nor did the federal reserves determination to keep interest rates high and fidling with reserve requirements and other banking mechanisms.

But let us not learn from histories mistakes. Let's act like big government, and not the war, saved us from the great depression, rather then caused it.

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

[ QUOTE ]

Having fixed none of the structual problems in the economy FDR had run out of money by that time. Had WWII not saved us, he would have gone down in history as a horrible president........
But let us not learn from histories mistakes. Let's act like big government, and not the war, saved us from the great depression, rather then caused it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me see, the second world war caused a massive increase in the percentage of US national income spent by the government, represent a huge increase in Keynsian defict spending, federalised large parts of the US economy and generally massively increased the role of the state way beyond anything dreamt of in the NRA, NRLB, CCC, PWA or NYA programmes. according to you, this massive increase in state spending saved america, but a far smaller increase was a parlous error. Can you see the flaw in your argument, or would you rather FDR had started spending at WW2 rates immediately on entering office, in order to "save" america?

In reality War = Big government, for good or ill.

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Having fixed none of the structual problems in the economy FDR had run out of money by that time. Had WWII not saved us, he would have gone down in history as a horrible president........
But let us not learn from histories mistakes. Let's act like big government, and not the war, saved us from the great depression, rather then caused it.

[/ QUOTE ]

In reality War = Big government, for good or ill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because silly statements like the one above annoy me.. here are the stats for federal govt expediture in unadjusted dollars from 1929 onwards. Some foolish people might think that Government got quite big in the 2nd world war, and that this might have had some small impact on the economy.

DATE VALUE
1929 2.6
1930 2.7
1931 4.0
1932 3.0
1933 3.4
1934 5.5
1935 5.6
1936 7.8
1937 6.4
1938 7.3
1939 8.4
1940 8.5
1941 12.7
1942 31.0
1943 52.6
1944 66.9
1945 70.5
1946 44.5

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

It's quite correct that in situations of severe demand shortage Keynsian stimulation is a good cure for the economy.

But is this what a majority of FDRs programs did. Some of his most famous programs, like social security, were transfer payments. Those don't effect GDP at all. Tax increases didn't really help the economy, nor did excessive government regulation or price controls. Nor cutting of international trade to protect American jobs. Nearly all government solutions made the depression worse. I won't pin the central banks mistakes on FDR, but they tried thier fair share of government based solutions that hurt the economy.

Even ignoring those structural problems caused by government intervention, let's assume keynsian stimulation is the best solution to such an extreme demand shortfall. That doesn't mean we should continue it long after the crisis is over. Poster I responded to claimed FDRs policies where the basis of prosperity from 1940-1970. That's a pretty broad claim beyond keynsian demand helping with the depression.

By you logic maintaining incredibly high government spending and deficiet spending would be great for the economy over the long run. However, if that were true then the soviet union would not have collapsed, they only needed to increase government spending. Simply increasing government spending doesn't improve the economy, especially if your not suffering from a severe demand shortage.

The only way to achieve long term economic growth is through productivity gains.

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

[ QUOTE ]
By your logic maintaining incredibly high government spending and deficit spending would be great for the economy over the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a ridiculously inaccurate restatement of my argument, and of the New Deal in general. It is the kind of absurd strawman that seriously makes me question the intellectual integrity of the poster. The New Deal was about insuring the economic futures of working men and women, and protecting the right to organize for better wages and working conditions. To characterize that as just a "spending program" is laughable. It's like saying that buying food for your family or insurance for your kids is just a "spending program". It's as though you've completely decided to ignore what the New Deal actually bought for America, and the way that it helped working Americans build two generations of solid middle class jobs and paychecks in this country.


q/q

Re: Supreme Court Decision That \"Sticks in your Craw\" the Most
 

My parents are both in unions. If they are examples of what built the middle class, I sure as hell don't see it. Thier unions are horrible, and they seem to hurt thier employees as much as they help. Most unions have broken up by now because they were failures, and a lot of industries with unions have failed miserably and gone out of business.

American business, with its amazing productivity increases, helped provide the prosperity of the 1950s and 60s. The innovation of the free market drove growth and provided jobs and lives.

Meanwhile, his social programs like SS are going to bankrupt my generation. You don't provide social insurance by creating huge liabilities and relying on future tax revenues that may or may not materialize to pay for them.