Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: gopno1
I still think Wickard v. Filburn may be the worst Supreme Court decision of all time.

Dred Scott v. Sandford is the worst ever. It helped precipitate the Civil War. Wickard v. Filburn is definitely in the top 5.

37 posted on 01/06/2014 11:20:58 AM PST by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]


To: Repeal 16-17

Don’t forget Sandford v Son...


44 posted on 01/06/2014 11:36:16 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

To: Repeal 16-17
Dred Scott v. Sandford is the worst ever. It helped precipitate the Civil War. Wickard v. Filburn is definitely in the top 5.

Not going to argue with Dred Scott, for certain. There have been some bad ones over the years, encompassing many different areas of law. I hadn't even heard of Wickard until I took Con Law in law school, and when I read it my reaction was basically "horrified". It was at that point I realized the Commerce Clause was completely out of control. Obviously this is a gay marriage thread and I am not trying to turn the discussion, but for just bad decisions in general I always found Wickard one to be one of the worst. The Affordable Care Act may end up being at the top when it's all said and done, but that remains to be seen.

This gay marriage stuff should be left to the states, in my opinion, and federal judges should just stay out of it. Then again, they should stay out of a lot of stuff.

51 posted on 01/06/2014 1:37:15 PM PST by gopno1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

To: Repeal 16-17; steelhead_trout; gopno1
>>I still think Wickard v. Filburn may be the worst Supreme Court decision of all time.
>
>Dred Scott v. Sandford is the worst ever. It helped precipitate the Civil War. Wickard v. Filburn is definitely in the top 5.

Also, submitted for your consideration is Schenck v. United States which basically declared that the Constitution's absolutes (in this case the 1st amendment) were not actually absolute: that certain "exigent circumstances" (in this case war) necessitated a change in thinking.

When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.
vs
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

82 posted on 01/07/2014 10:08:15 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson