US Supreme Court Meme (from rivers_bend)

[deelaundry]

The Rules: Post info about ONE US Supreme Court decision, modern or historic, to your lj. (Any decision, as long as it's not Roe v. Wade.)

I admit I had to go look up the name (promise if I run for second highest office in the land, I'll memorize the most important cases to me).

Loving v. Virginia (1967) was the case in which the US Supreme Court declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. The effect was to end all race-based legal restriction on marriage in the United States.

Comments

[nightdog-barks.livejournal.com]

Loving v. Virginia is an interesting choice.

I have to admit the only case besides Roe v. Wade I could think of off the top of my head is Brown v. Board of Education.

[deelaundry.livejournal.com]

Loving v. Virginia has come up a lot lately due to discussion of same-sex marriage. It was rather doofy of me to have forgotten the name.

Wikipedia has a list of major US Supreme Court cases, and it's really fascinating to look back. Things change so much over time.

[warmdarkwoman.livejournal.com]

Loving v. Virginia is the reason I'm able to be married to my wonderful husband. *squishes it*

I'm still mad that she didn't think of Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v. Board of Education. I mean, really.

[deelaundry.livejournal.com]

I added in the date for Loving v. Virginia, because some people don't realize how recent that was. Some of the same derogatory things that are said about same-sex relationships were being said, out loud, by government officials and others in power, only a generation ago about interracial relationships.

*squishes you and your husband* I love hearing about happy relationships. *happy sigh*

Palin digs herself deeper into a hole with everything she says, or is not able to say. Today I read that she she said she's eager for the debate because the press has been censoring her comments. What? What? What?

[nightdog-barks.livejournal.com]

How would she know the press is censoring her comments?

After all, she can't name a single news source (http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/10/01/palin-reads-all-the-papers/).

Gah.

[deelaundry.livejournal.com]

You know, but it's "gotcha" journalism to ask her to name one! Who's asked Obama this same question? Nobody! And nobody's asked him to name a Supreme Court decision, either! !!!111!!One!!


You know, when RSL rambles and says nonsensical things and seems totally out of touch with today's world, it's cute. It's cute. When a major party VP candidate does it... not so much.

[deelaundry.livejournal.com]

D'oh! How could I have forgotten that one?

[mer-duff.livejournal.com]

This is a fascinating meme - it's a little disturbing that I know more U.S. Supreme Court cases than Canadian (though Wikipedia only lists 10 landmark cases and at least I knew two of them by partial name).

It only went to the state Supreme Court, but Scopes vs. State (the appeal of the verdict of the "Scopes Monkey Trial") seems appropriate under the circumstances

[deelaundry.livejournal.com]

I immediately thought of Scopes but, as you said, it was a state case, not Federal.

I'm disheartened by how very few cases I could come up with the actual name for. I remember the decisions (although even that list of recollections is shorter than it should be) but not the names. : (

[mer-duff.livejournal.com]

Epperson vs. Arkansas (1968) would count (but not for me, because I didn't know about it before following some links) - that was a U.S. Supreme Court case that invalidated a state statute prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools.

[perspi.livejournal.com]

Aaaand you inspired me to post about one of the cases that I know that nobody else in the world probably cares about...

[deelaundry.livejournal.com]

Yay! America in action!

[alex51324.livejournal.com]

I have to admit, Brown v Board is the only one other than Roe v. Wade that I'd be able to come up with off the top of my head (I'd remember Loving, Scopes, and Bush V. Gore if I had some time to think about it). But I'm not running for vice president, and how jaw-dropping is it that she *couldn't* even think of Brown v. Board? *Everyone* knows that. I bet our British and German pals would be able to come up with that one.

[deelaundry.livejournal.com]

It had to be a decision she disagreed with, so maybe she agrees with Brown v. Board of Ed?

Nope, I just watched the actual interview, and she flubbed it. Katie asked Biden about Supreme Court decisions he disagrees with, and he mentioned the one he argued in front of the court.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBt0r9Exv2I

No difference in qualifications there, nope!

[alex51324.livejournal.com]

Oh, a decision she *disagreed* with--that does narrow it down some--I didn't hear the whole story. That's not *quite* as bad as not being able to name *any* SC decision.

[chippers87.livejournal.com]

I used to know more Supreme Court cases off the top of my head during the year I had to take US Government one semester and Texas Government the next. I feel so sad now that I've forgotten.

[deelaundry.livejournal.com]

I should know more than I do! It's sad I don't know more.

PS. I clicked through on an article about Hugh Laurie's house being burglarized, and this was one of the comments in reply:

Jaminator 737: "The facts of the matterare these.FACT The police cannot be everywhere at once. FACT The Police and Prosecuters hands are tied by laws that were initially concieved to protect the innocent. With the influx of undesirables from other countries, Many here illegaly anyway these laws punish the innocent now and protect the guilty.Some here advocate a dog, some avocate an alarm. Many here insist it is a firearm that is a VICTIMS best friend. Me all three in concert with one another seems like a good idea. If the ACLU is so intent on giving rights to the criminals I say we remember our rights and give these unddesirables a ride home on the "HOT LEAD EXPRESS!""

***

I wonder if Jaminator realizes that Hugh Laurie is from another country.

[chippers87.livejournal.com]

Having volunteered for the ACLU last year, that comment makes me laugh... bitterly.

[m-supercomputer.livejournal.com]

I like Lawrence v. Texas (struck down state laws barring sodomy, 2003; I remember being terribly amused that this decision came down the same exact day Strom Thurmond died, because I am a bad person), Griswald v. Connecticut (which struck down laws forbidding contraceptives use by *married couples,* which just happened in 1965, amazingly, and brought the idea of a guaranteed right of privacy into interpretation of the law) and Miranda v. Arizona (which is the prisoners on cop shows being read their "Miranda rights" came from). A recent one I disapprove of is DC v Heller, which overrode the city's general weapons ban. Which, you know, is kinda hypocritical for the current court - ohh, it's important to limit federal power over the states, but the District of Columbia? It's totally okay to overrule their right to self-govern! Hmmph, I say.

.../is political geek. *g*

[deelaundry.livejournal.com]

Lawrence v. Texas was the first one I thought of, but I was trying to list one I hadn't seen on my f-list before.

And I totally should've remembered DC v. Heller! The government just loves fucking with DC, don't they? It's like Congress, in particular, thinks "DC" stands for "Domain of Congress." Crap they wouldn't dare pull on a state, they'll do to DC.

[poorfrances.livejournal.com]

I loved this meme and did it in my own LJ. I took law classes as part of my political science degree and loved them, so much so that I'm actually about to go back and continue my overeducation by going back and becoming a paralegal. I chose Lawrence v. Texas and Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer.

[deelaundry.livejournal.com]

Lawrence v. Texas was another one that came to mind for me (although I couldn't remember the plaintiff's name on that one either, bad me). Where did you get your poli-sci degree?