View Thread Return to Index Previous Next

MiYard Cyber Club Message Board Archive

Supreme Court legislating from the bench
By:MilwaukeeMike
Date: 10/19/08 10:42pm
In Response To: Roe was wrong! (ray)

Sometimes legislating from the bench isn't a bad thing Ray.
Sometimes it is. The point is Ray that it is something that has been going on since our country's early days. As a lawyer, you more than most must be aware that the founding fathers planned it this way so the other two branches are held in a system of checks and balances. I've been to your website and note that Constitutional law is not your speciality.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Marbury v. Madison (1803) -- The Supreme Court's keystone power of Judicial Review was established by this case.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) -- A conflict arose between a state government and the Federal government, with the state government being declared subordinate to the Federal government where laws conflict.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) -- In this case the Supreme Court gave a wide definition to Congress' power to "regulate commerce... among the several states."

Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) -- Slaves were classified as property. This case fueled the flames that began the Civil War.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) -- This famous case laid the groundwork for the "separate but equal doctrine" that limited the rights of minorities for decades.

Schenck v. United States (1919) -- "Clear and Present Danger" was established in this case as an acceptable reason for the limiting of free expression.

Gitlow v. New York (1925) -- The Supreme court began in this case to identify the rights that were protected by the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Powell v. Alabama (1932) -- The Supreme Court ruled here that the right to counsel was required by law in death penalty trials.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) -- A tremendous step in the direction of equal rights for all citizens.

NAACP v. Alabama (1958) -- Freedom of association (the right to assemble in groups) was protected here.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) -- The exclusionary rule was applied to state and local criminal prosecutions.

Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) -- Prayer in classrooms was determined to be in violation of the First Amendment.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) -- Free legal counsel was established in this case to be necessary in case the defendent in any criminal case cannot afford it.

Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) -- The Supreme Court declared here that each person's vote carries equal measure.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) -- Marital privacy (specifically, the use of contraceptives) was protected by this case.

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966) -- Poll taxes were made illegal for state elections, as they violated the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) -- The rights of the accused were upheld by this ruling.

In Re Gault (1967) -- Children were granted some of the rights in criminal cases protected by the Bill of Rights.

Roe v. Wade (1973) -- In this highly controversial case the Supreme Court laid down what states can and cannot control in regards to abortions.

United States v. Nixon (1974) -- The President's "Executive Priviledge" was limited by this case.

Regents of the University of California at Davis v. Bakke (1978) -- Affirmative action was dealt a blow by this case.

Messages In This Thread

Candidate topic not yet addressed: rights of human -- Lola -- 10/19/08 12:21pm
Re: Candidate topic not yet addressed: rights of h -- ray -- 10/19/08 1:41pm
Both say no litmus test but both have one -- Lola -- 10/20/08 10:59am
Re: Both say no litmus test but both have one -- Roger -- 10/20/08 1:33pm
Re: Both say no litmus test but both have one -- ray -- 10/20/08 2:52pm
Re: Both say no litmus test but both have one -- Roger -- 10/20/08 3:05pm
Well Roger, we simply... -- ray -- 10/20/08 4:01pm
Re: Well Roger, we simply... -- Roger -- 10/20/08 4:05pm
Uh, simply, I see no need to as... -- ray -- 10/20/08 6:31pm
Re: Uh, simply, I see no need to as... -- Roger -- 10/20/08 6:44pm
Re: Come on Ray -- BMD -- 10/19/08 10:43pm
I would agree... -- ray -- 10/20/08 2:29pm
Litmus test semantics -- MilwaukeeMike -- 10/19/08 7:37pm
Re: Litmus test semantics -- georgiajan -- 10/19/08 7:55pm
Re: Litmus test semantics -- BMD -- 10/19/08 10:50pm
Roe was wrong! -- ray -- 10/19/08 8:22pm
Supreme Court legislating from the bench -- MilwaukeeMike -- 10/19/08 10:42pm
Uh...the issue was one of federalism -- ray -- 10/20/08 2:18pm
Re: Uh...the issue was one of federalism -- Roger -- 10/20/08 2:30pm
Ah....but you know McCain never said that *NM* -- ray -- 10/19/08 7:42pm
Re: Candidate topic not yet addressed: rights of h -- Roger -- 10/19/08 5:06pm
Re: Candidate topic not yet addressed: rights of h -- ray -- 10/19/08 6:22pm
Re: Candidate topic not yet addressed: rights of h -- Roger -- 10/19/08 6:31pm
Well, I would say... -- ray -- 10/19/08 7:30pm
Re: Well, I would say... -- Roger -- 10/19/08 7:49pm
Thanks again *NM* -- ray -- 10/19/08 8:24pm
Re: Candidate topic not yet addressed: rights of h -- queenb -- 10/19/08 1:29pm
Ummm, did you read any of it? -- Lola -- 10/19/08 1:38pm
This is one of the topics that. . . -- Col. Andy & "Wildcat" Pam -- 10/19/08 2:50pm