What are the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time?

[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/Judiciary_Reorganization_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!