Worst SCOTUS cases

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

With all the other awful decisions listed in the OP, I'm going to put "honorable mention" as Washington vs. Crawford. Mr. "Original Intent" threw out years of Confrontation Clause precedent, ignored reliability guarantees built into the hearsay rules, and destroyed thousands of prosecutions of wife-beaters in the crapper over his fantasy view of the constitution.

I agree that the effect of Crawford v. Washington on domestic abuse cases is unfortunate, but well within the intent of the sixth.  I think rather that the time has come to rethink the issue of spousal privilege.  It is a relic of the days when husband and wife were legally one person, with the wife being the subordinate part of that person.  Of days when marriage were almost always till death did they part.  Those days are long since passed.  Save for being an absolute bar against hearsay evidence, even in circumstances where it might otherwise be admissible, I think it's time to end spousal privilege.

Hence in the case at hand, the wife could be called to the stand to speak of what she saw of the fight, and in the case of a wife-beating case, she could be called to the stand to speak of what happened to her.

[Badger]

With all the other awful decisions listed in the OP, I'm going to put "honorable mention" as Washington vs. Crawford. Mr. "Original Intent" threw out years of Confrontation Clause precedent, ignored reliability guarantees built into the hearsay rules, and destroyed thousands of prosecutions of wife-beaters in the crapper over his fantasy view of the constitution.

I agree that the effect of Crawford v. Washington on domestic abuse cases is unfortunate, but well within the intent of the sixth.  I think rather that the time has come to rethink the issue of spousal privilege.  It is a relic of the days when husband and wife were legally one person, with the wife being the subordinate part of that person.  Of days when marriage were almost always till death did they part.  Those days are long since passed.  Save for being an absolute bar against hearsay evidence, even in circumstances where it might otherwise be admissible, I think it's time to end spousal privilege.

Hence in the case at hand, the wife could be called to the stand to speak of what she saw of the fight, and in the case of a wife-beating case, she could be called to the stand to speak of what happened to her.

Such provisions abrogating spousal privilege when it involves a crome committed against the spouse are already near-universal in all 50 states. Not an issue.

I disagree Crawford was required, or even consistent, under the Founer's intent theory. Common law exceptions to hearsay as now largely incorporated in state rules of evidence were well established at the time. Crawford's artificial blurry line between 'testimonial' and 'non-testimonial' evidence seems based more on ad hoc rationaliztion than history.

Regardless, the Ohio v. Roberts standard requiring particularized guarantees of trustworthyness was far sounder and well-based on Sixth Amendment jurisprudence.

The effect of Crawford goes FAR beyond DV cases (though women batterers particulrly luck out) to cases relying on labratory analysisi, business records, etc (I.e. a TOON of cases).

[Citizen Hats]

What ever my personal disappointment in the results of the 2000 election, I can't bring myself to count Bush v. Gore as among the worst. In the counterfactual where the recounts had continued, 1) Bush would have won under all but the loosest counting standards and 2) they probably would have run up against the elector deadline, and the Legislature would have appointed a slate of Republican Electors, as is their constitutional prerogative. Either way, odds are Bush wins.   

What the justices did do, however was (whether they wanted to or not) establish a precedent that all votes must be processed equally within a state as a matter of equal protection of law.  This was of great use to lawyers arguing against Republican attempts to manipulate the electoral rolls going into the 2012 election.  The legal case in Bush v Gore could not have dealt with the voter purges, the confusing ballots, the defective voting machines, and other irregularities which lead to Florida in 2000, but the ruling will be of great assistance in fighting them going forward

[pbrower2a]

Nothing in the Fifth Amendment ever said that a private person is required to sell property to a private interest.  The only imaginable exceptions are for easements for public utilities which are heavily regulated or the condemnation of nuisance properties. The idea that the state might seek to bulldoze houses so that a shopping mall can be built instead  because the shopping mall will generate more tax revenue ignores the contention that governments are not legitimately in business to maximize tax revenues.

I would completely agree with your first sentence. However, the issue is whether or not the government can take private property from one owner and transfer it to another in order to support economic development.

As for what I bolded in your quote, are you arguing that takings for private use that benefit the public only through additional tax revenues satisfy the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment? I don't even think Kelo went that far in terms of its reasoning, although that may be the logical conclusion of its decision unless it is scaled back in a future ruling. If the Court did go that far, nearly the worst of the dissent's fears would have been realized. There would be virtually no limit on the government's taking power if it could be justified solely on the basis of additional tax revenue.

(I also want to make a point that I am not at all making policy arguments here. This debate seems to have been mostly settled among the states, with the vast majority of states having already restricted eminent domain in their respective jurisdictions. Most discussion on this topic is just academic at this point. I'm arguing the constitutional issue with regards to the Fifth Amendment.)

No. I do not consider the maximization of tax revenue by compelling changes in land use and property ownership a legitimate end of State or local government. The State can use eminent domain for demolishing a nuisance property (let us say a whorehouse in a community in which prostitution is illegal), slum clearance, or needful additions to the public sector. So if a city is expanding its harbor facility, eminent domain applies.  The non-profit sector? Maybe one could make a valid case for the condemnation of private property for a veterinary school associated with Yale University. (Of course this is New Haven).

(OK, so I just suggested another valid use of eminent domain).

Kelo strips a small owner of the right to say no to a bigger player in the real estate, and of course reduces the right to sell out at a market-driven price.   

[illegaloperation]

Shelby County v. Holder

SCOTUS gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Shelby County v. Holder

SCOTUS gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The court gave more than ample warning in the dicta of Northwest Austin that it found the antiquated preclearance formula wanting.  It's a sound decision, albeit an awkward one.  If preclearance is going to be applied selectively to only certain jurisdictions, 40 year old data is not how to do it.

Even if you think it a bad decision, there are plenty of ones you should find worse.

[Citizen Hats]

But the thing with that 40 year old data was that there was a process to escape preclearance. Jurisdictions with a record of not being racist, namely a number of Virginia counties

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

But the thing with that 40 year old data was that there was a process to escape preclearance. Jurisdictions with a record of not being racist, namely a number of Virginia counties

So they guilty until proven innocent?  That's not the American way.  In many ways the expanded use of section 3 that the DoJ is now engaging in quite appropriate.  Those jurisdictions proven to have enacted electoral laws with a racist effect get to "enjoy" being subjected to preclearance again for a period of time.

[Citizen Hats]

Not the American way?  The Constitution does not mandate the Equality of States before the law, but it does mandate the equality of citizens before the law, and it mandates that their right to vote not be breached on account of race, and empowers congress take take action in that respect with 'appropriate legislation.'  You can argue that 1960s data is not 'appropriate,' but to argue that states are 'guilty until innocent' in the eyes of civil rights act is the same as making that argument before a parole board

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Not the American way?  The Constitution does not mandate the Equality of States before the law, but it does mandate the equality of citizens before the law, and it mandates that their right to vote not be breached on account of race, and empowers congress take take action in that respect with 'appropriate legislation.'  You can argue that 1960s data is not 'appropriate,' but to argue that states are 'guilty until innocent' in the eyes of civil rights act is the same as making that argument before a parole board

The problem with your parole board analogy is that the States already served their sentence and then Congress in its 2006 reauthorization of the VRA extended their sentence based on the very same evidence already used before to convict them having enacted racist laws.

[traininthedistance]

Oh here's another terrible case worth mentioning:

Federal Baseball Club v. National League

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Oh here's another terrible case worth mentioning:

Federal Baseball Club v. National League

The effects of that one are not as far reaching as other's described here, but yeah, that is definitely an awful decision.

[Storebought]

Practically every decision brought by the Morrison Waite court was an abomination.

The whole thrust of their philosophy was that the Court, and the federal branch in general, had no effective oversight over questions arising from state laws*.

Their decisions make no sense unless you accept that the justices on this court were simply on a vendetta against Reconstruction. How could a court so deliberately misread the Fourteenth Amendment to concoct decisions like United States vs. Cruikshank and the Civil Rights Cases?

The Lochner Era (I'm surprised no one has mentioned them on this thread yet) are also deplorable, and for a similar reason -- the Court, and federal and even state governments, had no effective oversight over corporate regulation. For all that, why not simply hand over government itself to an untouchable mafia and save yourself the expense?

I expect the lawyers and the libertarians to start telling me why I'm an emotive idiot who has no understanding of law any moment now...

*A Chase court decision, but Chase himself dissented

[MATTROSE94]

Easily Dred Scott v. Sandford, The Civil Rights Cases of 1883, Plessy v. Ferguson and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. There are proably more, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While the effect of the Civil Rights Cases was indeed most dreadful, I think they were rightly decided. Neither the Thirteenth nor the Fourteenth Amendments gave the Federal government authority to interpose itself in private contracts.  While the later Civil Rights Act of 1964 did do much the same thing as the struck down portions of the Civil Rights Act of 1875, it did so under the aegis of the Commerce Clause which in the decades since 1883 had been interpreted much more broadly than they had been when the Civil Rights Cases were decided.

[muon2]

Nothing in the Fifth Amendment ever said that a private person is required to sell property to a private interest.  The only imaginable exceptions are for easements for public utilities which are heavily regulated or the condemnation of nuisance properties. The idea that the state might seek to bulldoze houses so that a shopping mall can be built instead  because the shopping mall will generate more tax revenue ignores the contention that governments are not legitimately in business to maximize tax revenues.

I would completely agree with your first sentence. However, the issue is whether or not the government can take private property from one owner and transfer it to another in order to support economic development.

As for what I bolded in your quote, are you arguing that takings for private use that benefit the public only through additional tax revenues satisfy the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment? I don't even think Kelo went that far in terms of its reasoning, although that may be the logical conclusion of its decision unless it is scaled back in a future ruling. If the Court did go that far, nearly the worst of the dissent's fears would have been realized. There would be virtually no limit on the government's taking power if it could be justified solely on the basis of additional tax revenue.

(I also want to make a point that I am not at all making policy arguments here. This debate seems to have been mostly settled among the states, with the vast majority of states having already restricted eminent domain in their respective jurisdictions. Most discussion on this topic is just academic at this point. I'm arguing the constitutional issue with regards to the Fifth Amendment.)

No. I do not consider the maximization of tax revenue by compelling changes in land use and property ownership a legitimate end of State or local government. The State can use eminent domain for demolishing a nuisance property (let us say a whorehouse in a community in which prostitution is illegal), slum clearance, or needful additions to the public sector. So if a city is expanding its harbor facility, eminent domain applies.  The non-profit sector? Maybe one could make a valid case for the condemnation of private property for a veterinary school associated with Yale University. (Of course this is New Haven).

(OK, so I just suggested another valid use of eminent domain).

Kelo strips a small owner of the right to say no to a bigger player in the real estate, and of course reduces the right to sell out at a market-driven price.   

What would you think of this more narrow example?

Suppose a private developer enters into an agreement to build a multiuse structure on the site of an old gas station. The city has already acquired the gas station and arranged for the cleanup of the ground where the tanks were. However, in researching the title to the property it turns out that there are four landlocked parcels behind the gas station site from the original construction of the gas station that remain in other private hands. Apparently the gas station didn't need all of the four original lots and they were subdivided to suit the purchase decades ago.

The city is able to locate the owners of three of those four parcels and they agree to sell to the developer. The fourth parcel is in a trust held by a bank. The bank is not authorized to make a sales decision on behalf of the trust and neither the bank nor the city can contact the owner (who may even be deceased). The city chooses to use eminent domain to acquire that fourth parcel, paying the trust and then turning over the deed to the developer.

Is this use of eminent domain an overreach by the city when the sole goal of the above transaction to maximize tax revenue?

[Person Man]

...and no one has mentioned Buck v. Bell...

and are we talking bad in terms of it literally the case being a bad interpretation of the constitution or it being grossly immoral?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

and are we talking bad in terms of it literally the case being a bad interpretation of the constitution or it being grossly immoral?

It appears to be open to interpretation.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

I am surprised no one mentioned Coker v. Georgia, or Bad-elk v. United States.

[Bojack Horseman]

Let's not forget when SCOTUS gutted Roe V. Wade in Planned Parenthood V. Casey. All these new abortion restrictions that have been passed since 2011? All legal thanks to Planned Parenthood V. Casey.

[Randy Bobandy]

Bush v. Gore is certainly among the worst of the worst.

[Antonio the Sixth]

There is a particularly despicable one which people often overlook, but which had the most terrible consequences for this country: Buckley v. Valeo, where they basically established that money=speech (thus laying the groundwork for Citizens United).

...and the McCutcheon ruling once again confirms Buckley's nefarious impact on jurisprudence.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Plessy v. Ferguson, Citizens United, Bush v. Gore, Dred Scott

[NewYorkExpress]

...and no one has mentioned Buck v. Bell...

and are we talking bad in terms of it literally the case being a bad interpretation of the constitution or it being grossly immoral?

The only reason I can think of as to why Buck v. Bell would be among the worst is that the Nazis used it as their justification for forced sterilization, genocide etc.

If you ignore that it's a mediocre ruling, but very much a product of it's times.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Actually, I'd say that the core holding of Buck v. Bell is sound.  The problem with eugenics is not primarily the concept itself, but that eugenic principles ended up being broadly applied without any proof that the problem that it was desired to correct was indeed genetic and due process was often severely limited in these cases.  The due process problems were indeed a product of the times.  We do have a better understanding of the science of genetics these days, and eugenics is still very much around and is probably being more broadly applied today than in the interwar period.  The major difference between eugenics then and eugenics now is that the tool of eugenicists then was sterilization and the tool of eugenicists today is abortion.