(no subject)

[rivka]

Following up on an interesting conversation in fairoriana's journal, I'm curious about what people know and/or remember about U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

Before clicking through, please see how many U.S. Supreme Court decisions you can name off the top of your head.

[Poll #1269935]

Comments

[annaoj.livejournal.com]

It's funny--I know perfectly well that I recognize various Supreme Court cases (e.g., Marbury v. Madison, and so on) *only* because of my involvement in the National Constitution Competition from '87-'89.

[ckd]

I suppose Elk Grove v. Newdow is mostly interesting in its current form because of the way the Supreme Court had to find an excuse not to rule on it...but I'll be interested to see how Newdow v. Rio Lindo shakes out.

[oursin.livejournal.com]

I couldn't name many of those off the top of my head, but when I see them written down several look familiar and I could possibly hazard a guess at what they are to do with. Even though I am a UK citizen with no special expertise in US history.

[thette.livejournal.com]

I could think of six right away, and I'm Swedish (with a completely different legal system not based on case law).

[erikted.livejournal.com]

Out of curiosity, how did you come to be familiar with them?

I mean, I can name a bunch of South African Constitutional Court (and even some (lower) High Court decisions and a few key criminal cases), but I've lived and worked there off and on for over a decade.

[thette.livejournal.com]

I read American liberal blogs. Some cases are part of the argumentation very often.

[ailbhe]

This.

[rivka.livejournal.com]

I figured that would probably be the case for a lot of non-U.S. citizens. I'd be interested to see which ones you do recognize.

[oursin.livejournal.com]

Hmm:
Brown was school integration
Buck was eugenic sterilisation
Dred Scott was about slave/non-slave states and legal status
Griswold was birth control
Loving was inter-racial marriage
Miranda was about laws of evidence and giving the suspect due warning
Is Korematsu compensation for Japanese citizens interned in WWII?
Some of the others I might eventually come up with

[rivka.livejournal.com]

Impressive!

I suppose it makes sense given your areas of interest that you'd know Buck v. Bell, which is apparently only recognized by a tiny minority of my readers.

Of course, any psychologist who studies the uses of mental testing needs to know about "three generations of imbeciles is enough," and the tragic way that science was perverted to set Carrie Buck up.

[kate_nepveu]

Alas, _Korematsu_ was the decision upholding the internments.

Like Rivka, I am also impressed; I'm a lawyer and I didn't recognize _Buck_.

[rivka.livejournal.com]

I'm a lawyer and I didn't recognize _Buck_.

It was such an awful case. The lawyer supposedly representing Carrie Buck had close ties to the institution that wanted to sterilize her, and supported the eugenic movement. The main "proof" of her "feeblemindedness" was that she'd had an illegitimate child. And the child - who was just a baby at the time - was declared to be mentally subnormal based on essentially no evidence whatsoever.

That was enough for the courts to conclude that "three generations of imbeciles is enough," and they ordered Buck sterilized against her will. The supposedly imbecilic baby incidentally grew up totally normal, earning As in school.

[ailbhe]

Oh, my god.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Nixon v NYT
Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific
Loring v Palmer
Times v Sullivan
Miller v Texas

The Univeristy of Michigan affirmative action cases

[erikted.livejournal.com]

I had to look up the titles, which was embarrassing, because I was there when both suits were filed.

"The lawsuits decided today by the Supreme Court were both filed in 1997 in the Eastern District, U.S. District Court by white applicants, who challenged the use of race in the admissions processes of the University’s largest undergraduate school, the College of Literature Science, and the Arts (Gratz v. Bollinger) and its Law School (Grutter v. Bollinger)."

http://umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2003/Jun03/supremecourt2

Re: The Univeristy of Michigan affirmative action cases

[erikted.livejournal.com]

And, on the other hand, I would absolutely recognize either "v. Bollinger" name if I saw it.

[lizzibabe.livejournal.com]

I had trouble summarizing nearly all of them with the exception of three. The best I could do was a sentence stating what they led to.

[rivka.livejournal.com]

That's what I'm mostly thinking of when I say "summarize" - being able to say what right they established or what principle they spelled out. As in, "In re Gault established that minors accused of crimes have the same due process rights as adults," not as in knowing who Gault was and what happened to him.

[tchemgrrl.livejournal.com]

Ugh, I'm embarrassed. But based on the link, at least I *am* embarrassed. And not running for office.

[sistercoyote.livejournal.com]

Without reading: Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, and Roe v. Wade.

[tavella.livejournal.com]

I admit, I only came up with more than 10 because I had had the same question earlier today, and thus had had time to shake loose a few more from my brain. Also, in about half I only recalled the first part -- things like Miranda and Gideon, not Miranda vs. Arizona and Gideon vs Wainright.

It also turned out (having just looked it up) I was thinking Furman vs. Georgia was a different case, not the death penalty one.

[rivka.livejournal.com]

It's pretty common for cases to be referred to by just one of the names. I certainly had to look up who the other side of the Dred Scott decision was, for example.

I came up with 10 on my first round through, and then spent the next couple of hours saying things like, "Man, I can't believe I forgot to mention Plessy v. Ferguson!"

[tavella.livejournal.com]

I had much the same reaction when I saw Marbury vs. Madison, which had not been in my mental list. Just a trifle embarrassing to miss that one.

[baldanders.livejournal.com]

I just read about Baker v. Carr because of your post. This was completely new to me, and I'm horrified with thoughts of how much worse the last fifty years in the U.S. would have been without it. God bless William Brennan.

[puzzlement.livejournal.com]

For interests' sake, I filled out your poll but am neither citizen or resident of the United States. I would guess my (low) recognition of SCOTUS cases is above average for that group. Roe v. Wade is a pretty low bar, it has high name recognition even in Australia.

(ETA: I see this is discussed above too.)

[journeywoman.livejournal.com]

I was trying so hard to remember Marbury v. Madison, but the best I could come up with was Monitor v. Merrimac.

[rivka.livejournal.com]

Hee! The courts were a lot more exciting in those days. ;-)

[pauamma]

Monitor vs. Merrimac was a cannon law case. I doubt the SCOTUS would hear it.

[telerib.livejournal.com]

I tend to remember them as "that one about the pledge of allegiance, atheism and schools," or "that one about the DC gun ban." But honestly not much more than that.

I think I was in graduate school before I learned that Roe v Wade was based on the right to privacy. My US history cut off around WWII in high school and I never took any in college.

[rivka.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the father of Roe v. Wade was Griswold v. Connecticut, which was the first case to articulate a right to privacy. That one was about a law forbidding married couples to buy contraceptives.

It's kind of hard to wrap my mind around how different my world would be if contraception were not an established right. It really is the foundation of women's involvement in public life.

[ailbhe]

My parents didn't have access to it. I find it really easy to wrap my mind around it. *shudder*

[montoya.livejournal.com]

I was going to say that the Charles River Bridge case should be on your list, except that upon reflection, the words "Charles River Bridge case" encompass the totality of my knowledge on the subject.

[lyorn.livejournal.com]

Could think of five, and heard of eight: seven as in "this is the case that usually gets mentioned when topic X is talked about", and Bush v. Gore. Not enough for a summary, though -- only topic it is connected to in discussions.

I'm German and read (way too many) US-American blogs.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

They made a movie about Hustler Magazine vs Falwell.

[kodi]

I mention ex parte Young only because it has specific relevance to Palin in her performance of her current job.

[kate_nepveu]

Ah, thanks for the explanation--I wouldn't have expected Rivka, or anyone else who isn't a lawyer or involved in government, to recognize that or any of the other cases involving when and how States can be sued, since for all their importance, I get the impression they're not well reported.

[jinian.livejournal.com]

Wow, I suck. I guess I can put this under the heading of "history" since I'm already known to be bad at that.

[mjlayman.livejournal.com]

I marked more than I thought, but I would have marked more if I'd connected the case names better -- for example, as soon as I read Carrie Buck lower, I knew what that was: one of Virginia's bad decisions. Same with some others.