Comments on: What’s the worst still-current Supreme Court decision?

By: Gary L. Zerman

Gary L. Zerman — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:29:24 +0000

Bradley v. Fisher, 80 US 335 (1872). Unconstitutional judicial power grab where judges gave themselves ABSOLUTE judicial immunity – including corrupt & malicious acts; see Justice Davis’ dissent. Bradley cites NO constitutional authority/basis, violates the doctrine of separation of powers (where was the legislature? the executive branch?) and Justice Field overturned his own Brigham v. Randall, 74 US 523 (1868), which HAD excepted corrupt & malicious acts just 4 years earlier. Bradley (and Brigham) inverted the sovereignty of WE THE PEOPLE and elevated the gov’t over, above & beyond the People, making the servant the master, the master the servant. For more judicial supremacy see: Pierson v. Ray, 386 US 547 (1967), making judges immune from liability under civil rights Title 42, section 1983, but read the much more persuasive lone dissent by Justice Douglas that totally debunks the contorted self protecting majority and the canard that immunity is required for judicial independence; and Stump v. Sparkman, 435 US 349 (1979), (a redo of Buck v. Bell) where the Court condoned the eugenics practiced by Judge Stump – the antithesis of a judge, but read the underlying Sparkman v. McFarlin, 552 F.2d 172 (7th Cir. 1977), a 3/0 decision where the court was repulsed by Stump and denied him immunity.

By: TRE

TRE — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:46:47 +0000

Marbury v Madison because it is responsible for all the bad ones!

By: Stephen R. Kaplan

Stephen R. Kaplan — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 01:55:13 +0000

Flemming v. Nestor, upholding the forfeiture of Social Security benefits of persons deported for Communist Party membership, stands on a bad eminence.

By: RoeOrBush

RoeOrBush — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:01:57 +0000

Well Roe v. Wade created a horrible split across the country that still plagues politics without much Constitutional authority.

And Bush v. Gore was iffy on a lot of counts but it has never been cited and does not seem to be precedential.

So I’d probably vote for Roe. Considering it’s supported by 60+% of the country, the amount of legal and popular criticism is pretty telling. Even Justices who vote to uphold it often think it should rest on different grounds than Due Process (see Ginsburg who thinks it should be on gender Equal Protection grounds).

And the sweeping nature of Roe has stifled all hopes of compromise on the issue and led to proxy fights across the 50 states.

If Roe hadn’t happened, we’d probably have legal abortion in 45-50 states for 90-95% of current abortions, but without the devisive disenfranchisement of half of the country.

By: A.W.

A.W. — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:10:51 +0000

There is nothing ridiculous about McCain’s statement. if he said it was the worst, that would be wrong in most people’s eyes? but “one of the worst?” Yeah, you are not crazy to think that. And in fact i agree.

I would nominate Kennedy v. LA however for the worst opinion this term, although the positive thing is that it makes it clear that Justice Kennedy is not about law: he is about his personal whims. Its not good that this is our reality, but at least we know, now.

By: Chae Chan Ping Rocks

Chae Chan Ping Rocks — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:13:35 +0000

Why should immigrants have rights? They’re immigrants.

By: MW

MW — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 01:29:36 +0000

Didn’t McCain say “one of” and not “the worst” ? I don’t see how listing decisions that are worse than Boumediene nullifies his statement or makes it ridiculous.

By: Paul Gowder

Paul Gowder — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 07:53:00 +0000

Oh, I hadn’t even thought of that one … it’s certainly a contender, just for sheer scale of human suffering.