rank the follwing cases

[Sam Spade]

West Coast Hotel v Parrish(1937) - This actually overturned an  decision of a few years earlier saying women's minimum wages were unconstitutional (which overturned an earlier decision which allowed female minimum wages!).  This is simply a sound overturning of one of the Lochner court's abuses of the liberty of contract doctrine, which unfortunately turned later into abuses concerning the Commerce Clause.

Schenck v United States (1919) - I see no problem with this opinion.  It was during a "declared war" and the specific acts the defendant did were within the wording of the statute.

Goldwater v Carter (1979) - rather minor case, don't know why it's here.  The question really isn't judicial, Rehnquist is correct. (I had to read it myself)

Bush v Gore (2000) - Probably the correct decision, but based off of the wrong rationale.  The Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas approach was a stronger argument IMHO than the Equal Protection approach, and frankly in using the Equal Protection Approach, I see no reason why 3 additional days for the count (when Florida law stated it must be turned in) was bad for the process.  Then again, maybe the USSC just wanted to say to the Florida SC, "Your decisions were so terrible, we're not going to give you the chance to purposely screw it up again".  That would be logical to me.

Griswold v Connecticut (1965) - Probably the correct decision, but the rationale is atrocious.

Kelo v New London (2005) - ironically much better than the 1986 Takings Clause ruling.  Really, this whole issue has been poorly decided on since the 1950s (I forget the case though)

Korematsu v United States (1944) - As A18 pointed out in a thread on this case, it really is based on the reasoning a case of a couple of years before (the name escapes me) and holds well within those bounds.  The issue I have with it is that the actions used against Korematsu were not explicit in the statute itself.  The case raises a lot of questions to me there.

Plessy v Ferguson (1896) - In reading the 13th and 14th amendments closely, this is probably a correct decision, however, the policy issues raised later on frankly made it unattainable.

Lochner v United States(1905) - Liberty of contract doctrine.  Really doesn't make sense, IMHO in this particular case, though there's nothing to me that says the Contracts Clause should be ignored, like it is today.

Texas v Johnson (1989) - less bad because it's been overruled.  Still bad decision.  Stevens dissent is hilarious.

Dred Scott v Sandford (1857) - once again, less bad because it's been overruled.

Roe v Wade(1973) - actually has been superseded by PP v. Casey, but still somewhat relevant, henceforth lower than Dred.  The major cause of most political and judicial "strife" in the US today and so unnecessary.