What are the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time?

[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)



Knox v. Lee (1871)



Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)



Schenck v. United States (1919)



Nebbia v. New York (1934)



Perry v. United States (1935)



Wickard v. Filburn (1942)



Korematsu v. United States (1944)



United States v. Alcoa (1945)



Roe v. Wade (1973)



Bennis v. Michigan (1996)



Kelo v. City of New London (2005)



Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007)



Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders (2012)



National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)

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/29205/4-worst-supreme-court-decisions-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.