(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

[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.