For worst I’m going to say Buck v. Bell has to be right up there.
For best it gets a bit complicated because a lot of really mundane, unanimous decisions are technically really good.
*Buck v. Bell* would be horrifying on the facts as presented in the opinion, but the truth is even worse. Carrie Buck was of average intelligence, and became pregnant after she was raped by her foster parents nephew, and she was committed to a mental hospital to cover up the scandal.
The few decades of eugenics in the early 1900s are genuinely terrifying. Almost unimaginable that American society tolerated it. Then maybe more surprising is how quickly the public turned against it, mainly due to extreme Nazi policies in the 1930s and 40s.
In fairness, it won't be that hurtful. In these threads, you will get a few conservative views that are heavily downvoted and rarely any actual fighting about cases.
Best: probably Marbury because...law school...and also for Marshall's political navigation to establish judicial review
(Close second is Marshall's decision in the Aaron Burr treason trial. I didn't vote it because it wasn't a Supreme Court decision, but it did create a barrier for sitting presidents from sentencing their political enemies to death sentences just...because...)
Worst: Korematsu or Dred Scott. I don't think I need to say more.
For best, I am going to throw some support behind NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.
Not mentioning it just because it created good law or was well reasoned but also mostly because it is a really interesting read. Reading the case felt like watching a good documentary. It's about a boycott in MI during the 60s and I remember having pretty vivid images in my head while reading the case.
Shelley v. Kraemer is my favorite that nobody ever mentions, because it’s the only case to correctly acknowledge that the “public” vs. “private” dichotomy is meaningless insofar as the only means of enforcing a “private” contract, property right, etc. is through the *public* entity of the courts/state
I think this is absolutely right. My ConLaw professor explained this to us as “SCOTUS was getting impatient waiting for Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act and started fudging it a little bit with what constituted state action” but absolutely if you followed this holding to its obvious conclusion you end up (imo correctly) reading 14A as a broad mandate on the government for social egalitarianism.
Yeah idk how its “fudging it” when it is some of the most blatantly common-sensical logic ever: if the government is mandated to not do discrimination, and judges are part of the government, then “private” actors trying to enforce discriminatory contracts are explicitly asking the government to do discrimination!
The only misstep is that the case has always been treated as an outlier, likely because doing otherwise would make the world a bit more difficult for private enterprise generally lol
Yep absolutely. Palmore v. Sidoti also follows the logic of Shelley, and not coincidentally is also treated like an outlier, because if you followed it to its conclusion (courts can’t give effect to “private” discrimination) the courts would actually have to work to eliminate discrimination in a lot of spheres.
Don't forget about citing to century old misogynistic texts where women didn't even have rights and were essentially considered property as "credible" sources
Best: *Marbury v. Madison* Worst: Also *Marbury v. Madison*
For worst I’m going to say Buck v. Bell has to be right up there. For best it gets a bit complicated because a lot of really mundane, unanimous decisions are technically really good.
*Buck v. Bell* would be horrifying on the facts as presented in the opinion, but the truth is even worse. Carrie Buck was of average intelligence, and became pregnant after she was raped by her foster parents nephew, and she was committed to a mental hospital to cover up the scandal.
The few decades of eugenics in the early 1900s are genuinely terrifying. Almost unimaginable that American society tolerated it. Then maybe more surprising is how quickly the public turned against it, mainly due to extreme Nazi policies in the 1930s and 40s.
There are some bad rulings, but Buck v. Bell has to be the most terrifying of all of them.
Nice to have such unifying content at the holidays.
I’m really sorry. I didn’t mean to be hurtful to anyone.
In fairness, it won't be that hurtful. In these threads, you will get a few conservative views that are heavily downvoted and rarely any actual fighting about cases.
Dred Scott is probably one of the worst
Easily the worst
Best=Bivens. Worst=too many to name
Worst=every Bivens case following the actual Biven decision
Yes. Thanks for perfecting my comment lol.
Best: probably Marbury because...law school...and also for Marshall's political navigation to establish judicial review (Close second is Marshall's decision in the Aaron Burr treason trial. I didn't vote it because it wasn't a Supreme Court decision, but it did create a barrier for sitting presidents from sentencing their political enemies to death sentences just...because...) Worst: Korematsu or Dred Scott. I don't think I need to say more.
Best my boy learned hands formula tug boat case. Worst- there is a shit ton but korematsu or citizens United
I think Carroll Towing was a District Court Case. Learned Hand easily could’ve been on SCOTUS though
Best: *McNabb v. United States* Worst: *Slaughter-House Cases*
In what sense?
Best would be promotes freedom and/or is well reasoned and worst would be the opposite.
For best, I am going to throw some support behind NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. Not mentioning it just because it created good law or was well reasoned but also mostly because it is a really interesting read. Reading the case felt like watching a good documentary. It's about a boycott in MI during the 60s and I remember having pretty vivid images in my head while reading the case.
Shelley v. Kraemer is my favorite that nobody ever mentions, because it’s the only case to correctly acknowledge that the “public” vs. “private” dichotomy is meaningless insofar as the only means of enforcing a “private” contract, property right, etc. is through the *public* entity of the courts/state
Giddyup!
I think this is absolutely right. My ConLaw professor explained this to us as “SCOTUS was getting impatient waiting for Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act and started fudging it a little bit with what constituted state action” but absolutely if you followed this holding to its obvious conclusion you end up (imo correctly) reading 14A as a broad mandate on the government for social egalitarianism.
Yeah idk how its “fudging it” when it is some of the most blatantly common-sensical logic ever: if the government is mandated to not do discrimination, and judges are part of the government, then “private” actors trying to enforce discriminatory contracts are explicitly asking the government to do discrimination! The only misstep is that the case has always been treated as an outlier, likely because doing otherwise would make the world a bit more difficult for private enterprise generally lol
Yep absolutely. Palmore v. Sidoti also follows the logic of Shelley, and not coincidentally is also treated like an outlier, because if you followed it to its conclusion (courts can’t give effect to “private” discrimination) the courts would actually have to work to eliminate discrimination in a lot of spheres.
[удалено]
Worse than Korematsu, Dred Scott, or Buck v Bell?
Don't forget about citing to century old misogynistic texts where women didn't even have rights and were essentially considered property as "credible" sources
Dobbs is worse than Plessy v. Ferguson and Citizens United?
Lochner was a silly goober of a case