Is it sad that more people could name a US supreme court case than one by their own highest court?

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Just something that's been bothering me a lot given the recent events.

[Yeahsayyeah]

As Germany is concerned, we just don't have these catchy names for our court cases. And only a few are of highly politiziced and polarized matters. We also have highest courts for any special judicial matter.

And as the US is concerned, there are probably three rulings that are known to the broader public in Germany as of today: "the anti-segregation ruling", "the right of abortion ruling" and "the gay marriage ruling".

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

No. The catchy names are part of the explanation here, but more important is that in most countries, the equivalent to the Supreme Court has less power. There are obvious exceptions e.g. ones throwing leaders out of power or imprisoning them in hybrid regimes or dictatorships, but these tend to be remembered less as rulings of a powerful institution and more as "that time there was a coup against the old boss" (because judges and courts tend to be more vulnerable to violent interference in these situations).

[kaoras]

I didn't expect a thread like this from an international poster. Most countries don't have fancy names for their rulings AND their supreme court's isn't as ehm... decisive as the US regarding legislation, which is a good thing

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

As Germany is concerned, we just don't have these catchy names for our court cases. And only a few are of highly politiziced and polarized matters. We also have highest courts for any special judicial matter.

And as the US is concerned, there are probably three rulings that are known to the broader public in Germany as of today: "the anti-segregation ruling", "the right of abortion ruling" and "the gay marriage ruling".

I mean the german Constitutional Court abortion rulling was rather weird. It rulled that the state was obligated to protect life from the moment of conception but only imposed a mandatory counselling period.

Germany attiude towards abortion seems weird to me, you have the CSU instructing schools in bavaria to devote a day to teach kids about the value of unborn life but somehow the tone remains pretty moderate.

I didn't expect a thread like this from an international poster. Most countries don't have fancy names for their rulings AND their supreme court's isn't as ehm... decisive as the US regarding legislation, which is a good thing

The frustration is mainly from like me seeing Indians posting about Row v. Wade, who probably couldn't name a single rulling from our incredibly activisit and important supreme court.

[CumbrianLefty]

Will join in the consensus here, relative supreme court anonymity is as a rule good not bad.

[JimJamUK]

I don’t think it’s sad (at least for us). I’m very happy to live in a country where the laws are determined democratically rather than by 9 unelected political activists masquerading as judges.

[Hnv1]

Will join in the consensus here, relative supreme court anonymity is as a rule good not bad.

Agree.

The fact that US SC cases are notorious is a badge of shame for the American political system. It's great laws we should know, not the political judiciary.

Though as a lawyer on private law I know far more house of lords verdicts than US SC cases.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Will join in the consensus here, relative supreme court anonymity is as a rule good not bad.

Agree.

The fact that US SC cases are notorious is a badge of shame for the American political system. It's great laws we should know, not the political judiciary.

Though as a lawyer on private law I know far more house of lords verdicts than US SC cases.

The Israeli supreme court is one of the few supreme courts out there that can give the US one a run for it's money in terms of political controversy. I think among Israelis that wouldn't hold true.

[Stranger in a strange land]

yes, not for you but for those of us in the US, because SCOTUS has evolved into a massively powerful unaccountable unelected legislature, whereas the High Court or Supreme Court in most other countries is more like an actual court.

[Yeahsayyeah]

I mean the german Constitutional Court abortion rulling was rather weird. It rulled that the state was obligated to protect life from the moment of conception but only imposed a mandatory counselling period.

Oh, it's even more weird than you think, because the mandatory counseling period was already in the law that was struck down. What this ruling said was, that abortion must be a felony in principle to save the unborn life, but it can be unpunishable in certain circumstances. That's, in essence, the law of the land. Of course, in practice there is no big difference between "legal" and "unpunishable". It probably paves a way for things like the possibility of the §219a that has been abolished now.

Judicial activism clearly isn't unheard of the German Constitutional Court. On the other hand, judicary review of laws after the example of the US Supreme Court is one of its basic tasks laid down in the German Constitution.

On the other hand, as you can especially see their ruling on abortion in 1993 and in their rulings on European integration the judges oft the German Constitutional Court seem to care about the effects of their rulings as they mix some bold judicial assumptions and findings on principle with a tendency of watering down what action they actually want to see taken.

Germany attiude towards abortion seems weird to me, you have the CSU instructing schools in bavaria to devote a day to teach kids about the value of unborn life but somehow the tone remains pretty moderate.

There is nothing weird about it. Like in many European countries abortion seems to be a settled issue for the most people as of now. The fights on the issue have been fought in Western Germany in the seventies and there is no big appetite to fight them again. Then you have the East which followed the usual socialst policies of few abortion restrictions on the premise of women's equality and the integration of women to the workforce and a total roll back would have been taken very poorly in the East.

On the other hand, it would be interesting to see, weither the Constitutional Court would hold up their decision of 1992 towards a more liberal abortion law, but their doesn't seem to be appetite for testing that, either, when on practical terms the difference isn't big.

[Flyersfan232]

Half of Twitter believed count dankula was a legitimate justice on the court

[Progressive Pessimist]

Half of Twitter believed count dankula was a legitimate justice on the court

Still probably a step up from Thomas.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

I don’t think it’s sad (at least for us). I’m very happy to live in a country where the laws are determined democratically rather than by 9 unelected political activists masquerading as judges.

I mean the Uk supreme court had it's own share of controversy with regards to several brexit rullings, Judge Hale even achived minor celebrity status.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I don’t think it’s sad (at least for us). I’m very happy to live in a country where the laws are determined democratically rather than by 9 unelected political activists masquerading as judges.

I mean the Uk supreme court had it's own share of controversy with regards to several brexit rullings, Judge Hale even achived minor celebrity status.

That was in a rare, short period of minority government and was followed by a large legislative mandate. Government is rarely so divided and dysfunctional that the Court wields the kind of power it did then.

[Hnv1]

Will join in the consensus here, relative supreme court anonymity is as a rule good not bad.

Agree.

The fact that US SC cases are notorious is a badge of shame for the American political system. It's great laws we should know, not the political judiciary.

Though as a lawyer on private law I know far more house of lords verdicts than US SC cases.

The Israeli supreme court is one of the few supreme courts out there that can give the US one a run for it's money in terms of political controversy. I think among Israelis that wouldn't hold true.

What wouldn't hold true?
I think the Israeli SC is also overreaching and unlike the US there is a public debate on it and changes are actually being considered. Moreover, very few people know the names of court cases both here and abroad, even the ones that have a lot of influence. Lastly, the Israeli supreme court is overreaching but it drifts away from really core issues like the settlements.

[JimJamUK]

I mean the Uk supreme court had it's own share of controversy with regards to several brexit rullings, Judge Hale even achived minor celebrity status.

That was in a rare, short period of minority government and was followed by a large legislative mandate. Government is rarely so divided and dysfunctional that the Court wields the kind of power it did then.

It also covered a lot of messy process rather than policy substance, so a simple majority in Parliament could easily get on with implementing their Brexit policy if they wanted to do so (they did not, though have now). It’s not like the American judicial system where some random judge from Alabama would get the Supreme Court to rule the EU unconstitutional or a judge from New York rules the EU referendum illegitimate because of Russian interference.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Supreme Court of India is one of the more powerful.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I can point to a few decisions by the Italian Constitutional Court (and I am sure most people in this country can) but they simply have no... name beyond "sentence number X year Y" and I am not going to remember that. It is also obviously much less politically contentious and powerful than SCOTUS, and I think the biggest gripes with it are not even about laws it has struck down but its very broad interpretation of inadmissibility grounds for referendum questions.

I doubt a significant share of Italians can name a single US Supreme Court case except probably for Roe v. Wade, and even that must include many who learnt what that is last week and may forget about it soon enough.

[EastAnglianLefty]

I don’t think it’s sad (at least for us). I’m very happy to live in a country where the laws are determined democratically rather than by 9 unelected political activists masquerading as judges.

I mean the Uk supreme court had it's own share of controversy with regards to several brexit rullings, Judge Hale even achived minor celebrity status.

That was in a rare, short period of minority government and was followed by a large legislative mandate. Government is rarely so divided and dysfunctional that the Court wields the kind of power it did then.

The UK Supreme Court was also visible uncomfortable with having to be involved in the process.

[Zinneke]

I think the point of this thread is that in Europe at least people seem very America-focused when there are ECJ rulings that changed the entire constitutional fabric of our states (Van Gend and Loos) and they received far less publicity at the time than all the big American court cases. Really Europeans should be more politically invested in what goes on at ECJ and their national Supreme Court levels. Germans seem to be a bit following Kalsruhe ruling against ECB policy that triggered an actual intellectual and interesting debate as to the limits of the Treaties. But Germans are girly swots. Meanwhile some theocrats 5k miles away make a ruling and there's calls for European countries to put the right to abortion in our Constitutions as a "response", as if constitutional matters of Europe should be defined and driven by whatever the hell happens in the demented decaying geriatric association of a foreign country.  

I blame Hollywood and Suits for this fetishisation of the American legal system. We should make our own West Wing, House of Cards, and Court Period dramas. We subsidise our film industry with lavish tax payers money and all they deliver is excessively avant garde bilge and borderline pornography. Surely European horizons can be broadened from the abstract and the carnal.

[CumbrianLefty]

Ah, the West Wing. Not only might it be a serious factor in America's final destruction (seriously) but the influence it has had on left-liberal politics this side of the pond has been far from healthy.

[Zinneke]

Ah, the West Wing. Not only might it be a serious factor in America's final destruction (seriously) but the influence it has had on left-liberal politics this side of the pond has been far from healthy.

I think it was someone on here or AAD who said that Obama's first two years when he had a majority in the Senate was basically him just traipsing around the White House looking for "feels" wanting to emulate that show. Thank god for The Thick of It (although I gather some UK politicians also seem to use it as a manual rather than a genuine exposure of their flaws - case in point : the current PM).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The UK Supreme Court was also visible uncomfortable with having to be involved in the process.

And the rulings it made were actually down-the-line constitutionally 'conservative' ones from a British perspective. There was no innovation and to the extent that anything shifted constitutionally it was a case of executive creep being cut back.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I blame Hollywood and Suits for this fetishisation of the American legal system. We should make our own West Wing, House of Cards, and Court Period dramas. We subsidise our film industry with lavish tax payers money and all they deliver is excessively avant garde bilge and borderline pornography. Surely European horizons can be broadened from the abstract and the carnal.

Ukraine had some actor named Volodymyr Zelenskyy.