# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  What are the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time?

## malkusm

I'm just legitimately curious what folks here would say. I should be able to rattle them off but I can't bring as many to mind as I'd like.

*Edit:* I'll try to compile them in the OP as a reference.

_Marbury v. Madison_ (1803)




> _Marbury v. Madison_, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution.


_Dred Scott v. Sandford_ (1857)




> _Dred Scott v. Sandford_, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), also known as the Dred Scott Decision, was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that people of African descent brought into the United States and held as slaves (or their descendants,[2] whether or not they were slaves) were not protected by the Constitution and were not U.S. citizens.


_Knox v. Lee_ (1871)




> _Knox v. Lee_, 79 U.S. 457 (1871), was an important case for its time where the Supreme Court of the United States reversed Hepburn v. Griswold (1870). The Court held that making paper money legal tender through the Legal Tender Act did not conflict with Article One of the United States Constitution.


_Plessy v. Ferguson_ (1896)




> _Plessy v. Ferguson_, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in the jurisprudence of the United States, upholding the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities under the doctrine of "separate but equal."


_Schenck v. United States_ (1919)




> _Schenck v. United States_, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), was a United States Supreme Court decision that upheld the Espionage Act of 1917 and concluded that a defendant did not have a First Amendment right to express freedom of speech against the draft during World War I.


_Nebbia v. New York_ (1934)




> _Nebbia v. New York_, 291 U.S. 502 (1934),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the state of New York could regulate (set and/or otherwise control) the price of milk for dairy farmers, dealers, and retailers.


_Perry v. United States_ (1935)




> The Gold Clause Cases were a series of actions brought before the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court narrowly upheld restrictions on the ownership of gold implemented by the administration of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt in order to fight the Great Depression. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote the opinion for each case, finding the government's power to regulate money a plenary power. As such, the abrogation of contractual gold clauses, both public and private, were within the reach of congressional authority when such clauses presented a threat to Congress's control of the monetary system.


_Wickard v. Filburn_ (1942)




> The intended rationale of the Agricultural Adjustment Act was to stabilize the price of wheat on the national market. The federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce through the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. In _Filburn_ the Court unanimously reasoned that the power to regulate the price at which commerce occurs was inherent in the power to regulate commerce.


_Korematsu v. United States_ (1944)




> _Korematsu v. United States_, 323 U.S. 214 (1944),[1] was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II.
> In a 6-3 decision, the Court sided with the government,[2] ruling that the exclusion order was constitutional. The opinion, written by Supreme Court justice Hugo Black, held that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Fred Korematsu's individual rights, and the rights of Americans of Japanese descent.


_United States v. Alcoa_ (1945)




> Alcoa said that if it was in fact deemed a monopoly, it acquired that position honestly, through outcompeting other companies through greater efficiencies. Hand applied a rule concerning practices that are illegal per se here, saying that it does not matter how Alcoa became a monopoly, since its offense was simply to become one.


_Roe v. Wade_ (1973)




> In disallowing many state and federal restrictions on abortion in the United States,[3][4] _Roe v. Wade_ prompted a national debate that continues today, about issues including whether and to what extent abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, what methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication, and what the role should be of religious and moral views in the political sphere.


_Bennis v. Michigan_ (1996)




> _Bennis v. Michigan_, 516 U.S. 442 (1996), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that innocent owner defense is not constitutionally mandated by Fourteenth Amendment Due Process in cases of civil forfeiture.
> Tina B. Bennis was a joint owner, with her husband, of an automobile in which her husband engaged in sexual activity with a prostitute. In declaring the automobile forfeit as a public nuisance under Michigan's statutory abatement scheme, the trial court permitted no offset for petitioner's interest, notwithstanding her lack of knowledge of her husband's activity.


_Kelo v. City of New London_ (2005)




> 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.


_Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency_ (2007)




> _Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency_, 549 U.S. 497 (2007),[1] is a U.S. Supreme Court case decided 5-4 in which twelve states and several cities of the United States brought suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force that federal agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) as pollutants.


_Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders_ (2012)




> _Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders_, 566 U.S. ___ (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that officials may strip-search individuals who have been arrested for any crime before admitting the individuals to jail, even if there is no reason to suspect that the individual is carrying contraband.


_National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius_ (2012)




> The Supreme Court, in a complex opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, upheld the requirement to buy health insurance—the "individual mandate"—as a constitutional exercise of Congress' taxing power. A majority of the justices, including Chief Justice Roberts, agreed that the individual mandate was not a proper use of Congress' Commerce Clause or Necessary and Proper Clause powers, but they did not join in a single opinion, A majority of the justices also agreed that another challenged provision of the act, a large expansion of Medicaid, was not a valid exercise of Congress' spending power since it unconstitutionally coerced states to accept the expansion or lose their existing Medicaid funding.

----------


## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

Well Roe v Wade is an obvious but I will need some time to fully type up everything that comes to mind.

----------


## Travlyr

Subverting the Constitution by claiming power it does not have ... Judicial Review.

The Supreme Court and Judicial Review

----------


## KnowNothing

This thread will be awesome, and easy to fill.

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius




> National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. ___ (2012), was a landmark[2][3][4][5] United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld Congress' power to enact most provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA), including a requirement for Americans to have health insurance by 2014.[6][7][8][9]
> 
> The Supreme Court, in a complex opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, upheld the requirement to buy health insurancethe "individual mandate"as a constitutional exercise of Congress' taxing power. A majority of the justices, including Chief Justice Roberts, agreed that the individual mandate was not a proper use of Congress' Commerce Clause or Necessary and Proper Clause powers, but they did not join in a single opinion, A majority of the justices also agreed that another challenged provision of the act, a large expansion of Medicaid, was not a valid exercise of Congress' spending power since it unconstitutionally coerced states to accept the expansion or lose their existing Medicaid funding.

----------


## James Madison

Marbury vs. Madison

----------


## Occam's Banana

Just a few right off the top of my head:

- Marbury v. Madison.
- the Alcoa anti-trust case (1950s-ish ?)
- I know some Holmes-court cases should be on any such list, but I can't immediately recall any them off-hand.

----------


## Travlyr

Knox v. Lee (1871)

----------


## awake

The recent EPA ruling.

----------


## malkusm

> The recent EPA ruling.


I assume you mean this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massach...tection_Agency

----------


## Tod

Dred Scott

Here are names/explanations for some other court cases which may or may not be the worst ones....

http://www.newsreview.com/reno/top-1...nt?oid=5378990

----------


## musicmax

In addition to Wickard v. Filburn and ACA (and I don't buy the idea that Roberts' ruling in the later constitutes a partial reversal of the former), I'd nominate:

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) The Court sanctioned 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.

Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, (2012)  The Court held that officials may strip-search individuals who have been arrested for any crime before admitting the individuals to jail, even if there is no reason to suspect that the individual is carrying contraband.  Double bonus points because (a) Mr. Florence was _wrongly_ arrested, and (b) he was arrested not for a crime but for a civil fine (a traffic ticket that he'd actually paid off).

Bennis v. Michigan 1996  Tina Bennis and her husband owned a car, in which Tinas husband engaged the services of a prostitute. The State of Michigan seized the car as a public nuisance. The Supreme Court determined that the government could take Tina Bennis property, without due process or appeal, even though she didnt know that her property was being used in this way. 

Korematsu v. U.S. 1944  Chief Justice Hugo Black wrote for the Court that the governments need to protect itself from spies outweighed the civil rights of Fred Korematsu and other innocent Americans of Japanese ancestry. The Court also ducked the chance to address the myriad other civil rights violations that marked the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

Plessy v. Ferguson 1896  The Court upheld a Louisiana law requiring forced segregation by train car on the East Louisiana Railroad. This protected racial discrimination in state laws under the separate but equal doctrine, which would remain in place until Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Keep in mind, Plessy didnt just allow for self-segregation or discrimination by private individuals. It expressly upheld the right of states to force segregation upon others.

Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) The Court declared that all blacks  regardless of whether they were slaves or free men  were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also ruled that the 1820 Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. The decision meant that slavery would be constitutionally permitted throughout the entire country and its territories.

----------


## Aratus

chief justice taney's ruling on poor dred scott's petition becuz

it helped to trigger our civil war as it destroyed his reputation.

----------


## malkusm

> Dred Scott
> 
> Here are names/explanations for some other court cases which may or may not be the worst ones....
> 
> http://www.newsreview.com/reno/top-1...nt?oid=5378990


Quite a liberal list, particularly their opinion of Lochner v. New York (1905), which to me seems like a good decision. Also, the right of tobacco manufacturers to advertise.

----------


## KnowNothing

I gotta ask. What exactly is the "downfall" of Marbury v. Madison decision? I mean I always thought that it was something that reinforced the third branch of gov't reducing any "surplus" of power in other branches.

SCHOOL ME.

----------


## muzzled dogg

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicia...n_Bill_of_1937*

----------


## Travlyr

> I gotta ask. What exactly is the "downfall" of Marbury v. Madison decision? I mean I always thought that it was something that reinforced the third branch of gov't reducing any "surplus" of power in other branches.
> 
> SCHOOL ME.


It subverted the original intent of the Constitution. The Supreme Court assumed power that was reserved to the States and the People. That decision undermined the checks and balances of government. They still don't have the power of judicial review, but they claim it anyway.

The Supreme Court and Judicial Review

----------


## malkusm

Bump for other suggestions

----------


## Pericles

Barron v Baltimore - the origin of the notion that the Constitution applied only the federal government and the BoR did not apply to the states - which led to the 14A to overturn this case, Dred Scot, and do other unintended damage.

US v Cruikshank -  reenforced Barron above in specifically stating that the 2A applied to the federal government only, and states could prohibit private militias, which had been recognized by the Militia Act of 1792. The SCOTUS not only gutted the BoR, but federal law as well.

----------


## Pericles

> It subverted the original intent of the Constitution. The Supreme Court assumed power that was reserved to the States and the People. That decision undermined the checks and balances of government. They still don't have the power of judicial review, but they claim it anyway.
> 
> The Supreme Court and Judicial Review


This line in the decision is the fatal flaw "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." because it was taken to mean that the states were not the final arbiter of whether or not a federal law is constitutional as a power of Article I, Section 8.

The SCOTUS was not intended to have the sole power of declaring a law unconstitutional.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

The Alcoa decision wasn't a Supreme Court decision -- it was a decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Listing Marbury among cases like Plessy and Kelo is inconsistent.  If the Court shouldn't have the power of judicial review, how can you complain when it upholds the actions of legislatures and local governments?

A textual basis for judicial review can be found in the language of Article III, Section 1, which invests "the judicial power of the United States" in the Supreme Court and in the lower courts that Congress might establish.  "Judicial power" had historically included declaring what the law is, so it's no stretch to assume it included the power of judicial review.  Federalist #78 supports this view:




> If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
> 
> Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

----------


## John of Des Moines

Hylton V U.S. (1796) - the first time that the Supreme Court upheld an unconstitutional tax.

----------


## osan

The worst of all time are the ones yet to come after Obama packs the court with progressive vermin in his second term.

----------


## foofighter20x

> *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicia...n_Bill_of_1937*


lol. I wrote that page.

----------


## Smart3

> Hylton V U.S. (1796) - the first time that the Supreme Court upheld an unconstitutional tax.


and on that day, not a single f--- was given about the Constitution.

----------


## otherone

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

----------


## RockEnds

> chief justice taney's ruling on poor dred scott's petition becuz
> 
> it helped to trigger our civil war as it destroyed his reputation.


I had this great genealogical breakthrough earlier this year.  I finally found the documentation necessary to trace my Ford line back.  I probably wouldn't have succeeded without the help of DNA testing.  It had been a huge brick wall.  My Ford line traced back to this fellow:

http://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/entry.php?rec=482

I descend from two of his children.  I have a little more information on the case than what is presented at the link, but I haven't ordered all the records yet.  The ruling was overturned by Dred Scott.  I'm looking forward to having the time to go over the case, not only because of the family history, but also the judicial history.  The Tennessee court reached a very different conclusion than the SCOTUS.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission


For those who don't think corporations should have First Amendment rights, doesn't it then follow that they don't have Free Press rights?  And from that doesn't it follow that the government could censor any corporate-owed medium, including newspapers, TV networks, and ISP's?

And is that what we want?

----------


## otherone

> For those who don't think corporations should have First Amendment rights


Rights belong to PEOPLE. INDIVIDUAL. PEOPLE. NOT. COLLECTIVES. NOT. CORPORATIONS. NOT. UNIONS. GOVERNMENT. IS. A. COLLECTIVE. TOO. GOVERNMENT. HAS. NO. RIGHTS. IS. THIS. HARD?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Rights belong to PEOPLE. INDIVIDUAL. PEOPLE. NOT. COLLECTIVES. NOT. CORPORATIONS. NOT. UNIONS. GOVERNMENT. IS. A. COLLECTIVE. TOO. GOVERNMENT. HAS. NO. RIGHTS. IS. THIS. HARD?


So you believe the government has the legal power to, say, criminalize any publication by a corporate-owned medium that is critical of the government?

----------


## otherone

It would be pretty tough to do without violating the first amendment Rights of the author(s), who I'm pretty sure are persons.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> It would be pretty tough to do without violating the first amendment Rights of the author(s), who I'm pretty sure are persons.


Hardly.  The author would be an employee of the corporation who published the work, and as an agent of the corporation his rights in the published work would be derivative of those of the corporation.  But since you've stripped the corporation of all First Amendment rights, the author is up the creek.

----------


## Weston White

Now, that is completely convoluted -not to mention rather absurd.

There is no reason why artificial entities could not (nor should not) be afforded protections from governmental abuses without crafting a need for them to exist as literal persons.  Just the same, corporations should not be permitted pretended human abilities to influence political campaigns as if they were one its very own employees, yet with limitless potential to provide for that influence.

Our _U.S. Constitution_ and _Bill of Rights_ are not such much guarantees of rights for a certain class of person (besides Americas charter the _Declaration of Independence_ had already provided us with such rights), artificial or not, American or not, but are more limits and restrictions designed to beset and enfetter those serving in government, themselves (Hamilton, _Federalist_ No. 84, _et al._)  Freedom of the press, of speech, of religion, of travel, of redress, of protest, of defense, etc., belongs to all, regardless.  _[T]he Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS._


And just in case you were wondering, I truly love how you quote to the _Federalist Papers_, that is when it suits you; gee, how so very lawyerly of you.

----------


## angelatc

> Rights belong to PEOPLE. INDIVIDUAL. PEOPLE. NOT. COLLECTIVES. NOT. CORPORATIONS. NOT. UNIONS. GOVERNMENT. IS. A. COLLECTIVE. TOO. GOVERNMENT. HAS. NO. RIGHTS. IS. THIS. HARD?


Apparently it's too hard for you.  The court said (all 9 of the justices agreed) that corporations are groups of people, and that people have as much of a right to speak as a group as they do individually.  Then the 4 liberals voted to outlaw it anyway.

I can't get my head around the concept of limiting free speech.  Sorry.

----------


## angelatc

> The worst of all time are the ones yet to come after Obama packs the court with progressive vermin in his second term.


It would be some solace if we could at least count on them for civil liberty, you know?  But they always cop put on that, too.

See: Citizen's United.

----------


## otherone

> Apparently it's too hard for you.  The court said (all 9 of the justices agreed)


Apparently you don't understand the topic of this thread. 
I can't get my head around the idea that pieces of legal fiction created by the state, who's entire purpose is the creation of wealth, have the same God-given Rights as actual persons. It's offensive.

----------


## angelatc

> Apparently you don't understand the topic of this thread. 
> I can't get my head around the idea that pieces of legal fiction created by the state, who's entire purpose is the creation of wealth, have the same God-given Rights as actual persons. It's offensive.


The First Amendment doesn't put any constraints on who is allowed to speak, and groups of people have always had the right to band together to redress their grievances. You're seriously advocating for bigger government?

Here's the deal:

A government that decides which groups of people are allowed to speak as a group is more than offensive - it's dangerous. If the decision had goen the other way, as Kennedy noted, it would have opened the door for the government to curtail speech of the ACLU, the Sierra Club, the Ron Paul Blimp, and the NRA : all corporations. 

The topic of this thread is the worst Supreme Court decisions.   So, banding together to create wealth in the form of unions  - ok.  Banding together to create wealth in the form of a corporation - not ok.  And it's peachy keen for the SCOTUS to just allow the government to take away rights from groups at will.  That would be a good decision? 

Corporations aren't "legal fiction."  It is a specific business structure that allows, among other things, for ease of ownership transfer.  (Does nobody here study business?) The Supreme Court has ruled since at least the 1800's that corporations have the rights - the right to sue, to be sued, to collect money, to sign contracts, etc etc etc.  Unless you think every stockholder should be required to sign every contract that a business enters into, it borders on the absurd to dismiss the corporate structure as "legal fiction." 

 Like I said, all 9 justices agreed that groups of people have as much right to speak as individuals do.  (In another case, they also ruled that corporations do not have the same 4th Amendment rights that individuals do, so you're mistaken when you claim they have the same God given righs of individuals.)  Also, take away "corporate personhood" and you lose the right to sue the corporations.  You think they wouldn't go for that?  Citizen's United did not give corporations any new rights - it gave them back rights they already had.

That's what I can't get my head around. Advocating for less freedom doesn't seem to be a liberty position.

So what you seem to be advocating is that the Court should rubber stamp the laws that Congress passes, and take away a right that they all agree exists, because you don't believe in corporations should exist. Is that about it?  

Do you think that people who band together for any reason should be allowed to speak freely?  If I buy paint, and you buy the Tyvek, and we make a sign to carry in a parade....couldn't that be considered illegal if people aren't allowed to speak freely, except as individuals?

Or you think making money is evil, and that people who join together only for that purpose deserve to have the government ban their right to speak?

When a candidate runs on a platform that includes putting a huge tax on a particular product or industry, you don't think that producers should be allowed to lobby against that, or to warn their customers via commercials and ads that the price of everything will increase dramatically if said candidate comes to power?

What about abortion?  I think that's evil, but the court has said it's legal.  Maybe the government should ban the speech of the groups that dare to question them on that.  

The KKK - obviously that group should lose their right to speak freely.  That's far more offensive than speech needs to be.

Sorry, but Citizen's United is one of the rare instances where they got it right, even though the left tried to stop it.  Liberals hate free speech and the progressives intentionally demagogue the issue with much crying about "corporations as people!"  because they want the government to control the business. 

I can absolutely wrap my head around that.  I just can't get used to the fact that Ron Paul supporters hate the concepts of free association, the right to petition our government, and free speech.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Corporations aren't "legal fiction."  It is a specific business structure that allows, among other things, for ease of ownership transfer.


With all due respect, the purpose of the corporate structure is to shield the business owners from personal liability for the corporation's actions.  As Ambrose Bierce put it in "The Devil's Dictionary", a corporation is "an ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility".  Since this is a special protection granted by the government, it would seem that absent the First Amendment the government would have every right to condition this protection upon the corporation's abiding by certain rules, including limitations on corporate political speech.  But if one grants that, one must also grant the govermnent the power to censor anything published by a corporate-owned medium.  And this is what the critics of Citizens United don't seem to understand.

This, then, is the dilemma of Citizens United: corporations are so ingrained in our economy that it is unthinkable that the only choice is either to allow government to censor corporate speech and press or to force media organizations to utilize a business structure under which the owners have personal liability.  We grant corporations First Amendment protection because we have to.

----------


## Wallrat

The Kilo decision, which effectively ended private property rights as we knew them, allowing the State to seize your land and give it to another private party. For the 'public good' don't you know.

----------


## AuH20

Wickard v. Filburn was Pandora's box.

----------


## seyferjm

> Wickard v. Filburn was Pandora's box.


Absolutely. One of the worst ever for sure. I cannot imagine what was going through the Justices' heads when this decision was made, talk about a wide-open back door lobby for BigAg companies!

----------


## Pericles

> Apparently it's too hard for you.  The court said (all 9 of the justices agreed) that corporations are groups of people, and that people have as much of a right to speak as a group as they do individually.  Then the 4 liberals voted to outlaw it anyway.
> 
> I can't get my head around the concept of limiting free speech.  Sorry.


Corporate charters exist for a reason - if a corporation is created for the purpose of publishing or presenting X idea, that would be fine. When the Board of Directors of a food company, use corporate profits to fund political campaigns, or influence legislation - that is not a right that should be granted via corporate charter - the question is which individuals associated with the corporation are have their rights advanced via the corp and do all individuals associated with the corp have the same right of advocacy via the corp. Next round of court cases on the issue ...

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm just legitimately curious what folks here would say. I should be able to rattle them off but I can't bring as many to mind as I'd like.
> 
> *Edit:* I'll try to compile them in the OP as a reference.
> 
> _Marbury v. Madison_ (1803)
> 
> 
> 
> _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ (1857)
> ...


Good list.  Add Gonzales v. Raich.

_Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes._

----------


## Sonny Tufts

previously posted

----------


## bolil

their decision not to hear a case challenging a recently passed Illinois law outlawing the filming of any public servants, ever.  (conflicts/abridges the freedom of the press)

----------


## jay_dub

Texas v White (1869)

The ruling in this case ended any thoughts we might have had about our right to secession. 

The right of secession, whether exercised or not, is essential to a free people. That right is key in Government having the proper fear of the People.

* "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."*

----------


## cbrons

Marbury v. Madison.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

To the contrary, Marbury is one of the Court's best decisions.

Without Marbury, Congress and the state legislatures would be the judges of the constitutionality of their own enactments, much like allowing the fox to guard the henhouse.

----------


## Katt

Kentuck v. King
2011
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1272.pdf



> All searches and seizures must be reasonable; and a warrant may not be issued unless probable cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity.  Although “ ‘searches and seizures inside  a home without a warrant are pre-sumptively unreasonable,’ ”  Brigham City v.  Stuart, 547 U. S. 398,403, this presumption may be overcome when “ ‘the exigencies of the situation’ make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a] warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment,”  Mincey v.  Arizona, 437 U. S. 385, 394.   One such exi-gency is the need “to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence.”


Now the sound of a flushing toilet gives police the right to bust down your door and perform a warrantless search.

----------


## rambone

No mention of the court's endorsement of compulsory human sterilization?

*Buck v. Bell (1927)*




> Buck v. Bell 274 U.S. 200 (1927), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the mentally retarded, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The decision was largely seen as an endorsement of negative eugenics—the attempt to improve the human race by eliminating "defectives" from the gene pool.

----------


## Tod

Hamdi v Rumsfeld, 2004

http://www.policymic.com/articles/29...ns-of-all-time




> In layman’s terms, if you are found to be a member of "associated  forces" (a term yet to be defined) of Al-Qaeda, you can be detained and  executed. Your U.S. citizenship is no longer a "get out of assassination  free card."

----------


## BamaAla

This far on a Ron Paul Forum and no McCulloch v. Maryland?!?

----------


## Weston White

No privacy rights to be provided in the phone numbers one had dailed (e.g., the pen register): _Smith v. Maryland_, 442 U.S. 735 (1979).

The creation of borderless Border Patrol checkpoints: _United States v. Martinez-Fuerte_, 428 U.S. 543, 566, 546 (1976).

No PC required to be stopped for a driver‘s license, registration, and insurance check: _Delaware v. Prouse_, 440 U.S. 648 (1979).

DUI/DWI checkpoints: _Michigan v. Sitz_, 496 U.S. 444, 455 (1990)—yet for whatever reason SCOTUS found that while investigating drivers for intoxication is entirely constitutional, investigating drivers for drug possession is unconstitutional (in _City of Indianapolis v. Edmond_, 531 U.S. 32 (2000)).

_Brown v. Texas_, 443 U.S. 47, 99 (1979) established a very lame three part test to determine the constitutionality of “checkpoints”: 

(1) The gravity of the public concern
(2) The degree to which the seizure addresses or advances the public concern
(3) The severity of interference with individual liberty


* And the devising of the overly-abused ‘no-knock warrant’ (_United States v. Banks_, 540 U.S. 31 (2003)): http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/knock-and-announce_rule

----------


## Brett85

Roe v. Wade, Kelo vs. New London, and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius.

----------


## pathtofreedom

Padelford, Fay & Co. v. Mayor and Aldermen of City of Savannah
is by far the worst one.
"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. If they do they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right to complain."

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Roe v. Wade as far as basic human rights go.

----------


## whippoorwill

Bump

----------


## sluggo

Hard to pick just one.

Right now I'd say Wickard V. Filburn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

or 

Gonzales v. Raich
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

The Commerce Clause should be renamed the "We're the federal government and we'll do whatever the hell we want clause."

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Roe v. Wade as far as basic human rights go.


Was Plessy v. Ferguson even "Wrong" constitutionally speaking?  It may sound like a no brainer, but I'm pretty sure the constitution doesn't  give the Federal Government any authority over this.  As such, the states can do what they want, even though I certainly wouldn't like the choice to discriminate...

----------


## Christian Liberty

As for the thread question: Marbury v. Madison.  There are too many bad ones to count, and overturning Marbury v Madison would kill them all...

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> As for the thread question: Marbury v. Madison.  There are too many bad ones to count, and overturning Marbury v Madison would kill them all...


Overturning Marbury would not kill those decisions listed by others on this thread in which the Court upheld legislative action -- e.g., Kelo, Raich, Wickard, and National Federation of Businesses.

----------


## Christian Liberty

After  thinking through this again, its actually Texas v White...

----------

