Talk:Essay:25 Worst Court Decisions

Just some suggesttions for cases you might want to consider adding to your list:

United States v Callender-upheld the Sedition Act, which made criticizing the gov't a crime

The "Civil Rights" cases (US v Stanley, US v Ryan, etc)-Congress has no power to prohibit private discrimination, the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the federal government

The "Slaughterhouse" cases-The 14th Amendment doesn't apply to state governments

Lochner v New York-the birth of the Substantive Due Process theory, beginning of modern "judicial activism"

Korematsu v US-In time of war, US citizens may be detained without trial merely because of their ancestry --Steve 10:34, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Good suggestions. I'll add the Callender case immediately, and welcome comments on the others.--Aschlafly 10:52, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

I love the idea of this essay. Clearly there is a lot of judicial activism and legislating from the bench, and this is a great way to really highlight some of the more egregious decisions. I've made an edit, which I hope is ok. SSchultz 01:34, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Worst?

Shouldn't there be some sort of specified criteria as to what makes a case more bad than any other? Additionally, shouldn't the facts be combined with the legal questions presented to educate the children viewing this site as to what would exactly make a court decision worse than any other? This seems like nothing more than a cheap, political attack at an unfavorable opinion, not a legally erroneous one. --TGlennRet 01:36, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Agreed with the first bit. Aside from that, there are 26 court cases listed, given that two are in the first one... I love that same sex marriage is only a little bit worse than slavery but still a lot worse than forced sterilization. Barikada 00:05, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Correction: I love how same sex marriage is classed as worse than forced sterilization. Barikada 22:17, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Further correction: Alright, I see some criteria... Don't see how the gay marriage case falls under that, though. Barikada 22:19, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Epperson v. Arkansas

The decision in that case was not "evolution has to be taught", it was that you could not legally ban evolution from being taught in a public school setting. --_transResident Transfan^form! 11:03, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Now I see that you're trying to condemn the case by condemning the justice who wrote the decision. This is a simple ad hominem attack, and is thus not a valid arguement. Also, the decision is still mischaracterized—see above. --_transResident Transfan^form! 07:57, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Worst Case

I think we should include Plyler v. Doe (1982) That mandated the education of illegal immigrants in public schools. Lukecorlando 20:14, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Wow, what a superb suggestion! That case should be on the list. It was a decision by the liberal Justice William Brennan, I think.

What decision should we take out to make room for it? Some have suggested reducing the duplicate-issue cases. Perhaps we have we could swap out one of the Establishment Clause cases, for example. You choose. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 21:10, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Either Engel v. Vitale or Stone v. Graham. They both involve religion in public schools almost redundantly. I believe that Plyler v. Doe should be placed very high as it is used as a precedent to strengthen the foothold of illegal immigrants in other instances as well. It also costs taxpayers billions. Lukecorlando

I am curious as to how Schlafly justifies his failure to include Plessy in this list and his decision to include Cooper, which was an enforcement Brown v. Board.--Laches 16:40, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Plessy was overturned, and the list does not include decisions overturned. Cooper was the case in which the Supreme Court declared judicial supremacy, and it was not simply an "enforcement" of Brown v. Board.--Aschlafly 17:57, 30 November 2007 (EST)

United States Federalism

I promoted Wickard v. Filburn to #2, because the expansion of the Commerce Clause beyond all reason was very detrimental to United States system of Federalism, was done by the FDR controlled courts, and modern liberals love the decision. I hope we get more Clarence Thomass to overturn this Unconstitutional abomination and Roe V. Wade. SW^{♠·♥·♣} 00:10, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Dinner conversations

I find reference 8 interesting because I had dinner with former Chief Justice Burger in 1993 and he told me he was quite proud of the Lemon decision. SSchultz 22:15, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Another entry?

Might I suggest this for the list? Barikada 15:12, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Missouri v. Jenkins

I think we should at least clarify why Missouri v. Jenkins is on here. As I mentioned in my edits to the case's article, the Supreme Court actually ruled that "The District Court abused its discretion in imposing the tax increase." (Source). I think that we should either take the case off here or explain that we're talking about the district court's ruling, not the Supreme Court's overturning. -- EvanW

But I think the lower court ruling was largely upheld, as modified by the appellate court. The case was in litigation for years and further discussion may be helpful. But I looked at your link and it seemed to uphold the lower courts for the most part.--Andy Schlafly 22:01, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

Point. I just read the opinion, and it said that while "The District Court therefore abused its discretion in imposing the tax itself," but "a local government with taxing authority may be ordered to levy taxes in excess of the limit set by state statute" to integrate schools. I'll edit the article accordingly. -- EvanW

Baker v Carr

It seems an eminently reasonable decision to me that the court can mandate that districts should be of roughly equal size so that each vote is of equal weight. If one district has 1 million people and another has 10 thousand people surely one could not say that the votes of people in each district are equal in value. What exactly is the objection to this decision? I understand that the effect of the decision was to reduce the power of rural (and typically more conservative) districts, but such political ramifications cannot be the basis for criticising a legal decision.
Having read a summary of the case I am also not persuaded that the argument regarding judicial interference in a political process holds much sway in the light of the fact that the Tennessee constitution specifically mandated that districts be redrawn to match population change. If a court is not able to enforce this provision then what point is there in having a constitution. --DamianJohn 14:45, 4 August 2011 (EDT)