NationStates Jolt Archive

I've mainly gone for the more famous/popular ones - and there are obviously plenty I've left out. Which do you think is the most important SCOTUS decision ever? (So, you don't have to agree with it - a virulent anti-abortion protestor might pick Roe, for example.)

(The one-line summaries are for simplicity, not wholesale reliability.)

Brown v. Board of Education (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=347&invol=483) - Segregated schools are unconstitutional

Eisenstadt v. Baird (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=405&page=438) - All adults, included non-married adults, can buy and use contraceptives, and arguably by extension engage in non-procreative sex

Roe v. Wade (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113) - Do I really need to say? Most restrictions on abortion violate the right to privacy

Gregg v. Georgia (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=428&invol=153) - Reintroduced the death penalty as constitutional (under certain conditions)

Texas v. Johnson (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=491&invol=397) - Burning the flag a protected First Amendment right

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=99-699) - Right of free assembly allows private organizations to discriminate based on for example sexual discrimination

Lawrence v. Texas (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-102) - Made it clear sexual privacy was protected under the constitution

Kelo v. City of New London (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108) - Allowed eminent domain (seizure of private property for 'public use') transfer to another private individual/organization

It would have to be the first one. A lot of the others you could live without, or at least do in private if not (ie sodomy; who's checking?) Segregation is something that discriminated against people every day, and in everything they tried to do.

(ie sodomy; who's checking?)
Joseph Quinn. And, more generally, the police.

NationStates v.The United States Federal Government
It'll come soon.

All the big SC decisions are almost equally vitally important, so I don't think it's possible to pick a "most important" one.

There are a lot more important supreme court decisions then those. Some of them are barely trivial in my opinion.

NationStates v.The United States Federal Government
It'll come soon.

Why would Nationstates have to care about the US government? If any such case were to come, it would more likely be NationStates vs. United Kingdom before the European Court of Human Rights.

Joseph Quinn. And, more generally, the police.
I believe the right not to have the police watching you engage in intercourse is probably protected in some American right or another. :)

I believe the right not to have the police watching you engage in intercourse is probably protected in some American right or another. :)
Yes, it is. That right is the right established under Lawrence v. Texas.

roe

By the by, OP, Griswold vs. Conneticut is probably more important than Eisenstadt v. Baird, if you were going for sexual freedom for heterosexuals and the right to privacy.

By the by, OP, Griswold vs. Conneticut is probably more important than Eisenstadt v. Baird, if you were going for sexual freedom for heterosexuals.
I went for Eisenstadt because it extended it to non-married couples. I know Griswold was important in setting the initial precedent...so I wasn't sure which one to pick. I suppose that vote can really "count" for either.

Why would Nationstates have to care about the US government? If any such case were to come, it would more likely be NationStates vs. United Kingdom before the European Court of Human Rights.
The US government will bomb every NSer's home, with a smile of course.

Yes, it is. That right is the right established under Lawrence v. Texas.
Well no, if your description is anything to go by, that case protected your right to commit sodomy (is commit the right word here?). What I'm talking about is the right not to be searched and arrested without due cause. And, short of someone actually sitting and watching you doing the act, it's hard to prove a due cause, therefore making sodomy possible, even had it remained illegal.

Well no, if your description is anything to go by, that case protected your right to commit sodomy (is commit the right word here?). What I'm talking about is the right not to be searched and arrested without due cause. And, short of someone actually sitting and watching you doing the act, it's hard to prove a due cause, therefore making sodomy possible, even had it remained illegal.
Ok, sorry, my description was misleading. What actually happened was:
- Lawrence and Gardner were having consensual sex in Lawrence's house
- a cop came in, after a neighbour called about "a racket" or something
- the cop arrested them, because Texan state laws prohibited homosexual relations
- the SC struck that down

Ok, sorry, my description was misleading. What actually happened was:
- Lawrence and Gardner were having consensual sex in Lawrence's house
- a cop came in, after a neighbour called about "a racket" or something
- the cop arrested them, because Texan state laws prohibited homosexual relations
- the SC struck that down
People amaze me sometimes. Had I walked in on two people engaged in intimate relations, my instinct would be to walk out feeling very embarrassed and have extreme difficulty looking either of them in the eye again.

Did the cop say "stick 'em up!"?

Sorry, couldn't resist

People amaze me sometimes. Had I walked in on two people engaged in intimate relations, my instinct would be to walk out feeling very embarrassed and have extreme difficulty looking either of them in the eye again.

Did the cop say "stick 'em up!"?

Sorry, couldn't resist
Heh. I'm always amused by the emphasis placed on the fact that "when he entered, he had his weapon drawn".

Well no, if your description is anything to go by, that case protected your right to commit sodomy (is commit the right word here?). What I'm talking about is the right not to be searched and arrested without due cause. And, short of someone actually sitting and watching you doing the act, it's hard to prove a due cause, therefore making sodomy possible, even had it remained illegal.

You should read Lawrence vs. Texas. What happened was exactly what you say - the police stormed an apartment and found two men having sex in it and arrested them, after a neighbour who had previously harassed the couple filed a false report of a "weapons disturbance" in their home.

The crazy thing is, prior to that case that's what the US police and government could do: send you to jail for having consensual sex with another adult in the privacy of your own home. In 2003! It is a kooky country...

Edit: Beaten to it.

The US government will bomb every NSer's home, with a smile of course.

I think they'd have more problems with the US being nuked, then, than with any NS suit before their charcoaled Supreme Court.

I went for Eisenstadt because it extended it to non-married couples. I know Griswold was important in setting the initial precedent...so I wasn't sure which one to pick. I suppose that vote can really "count" for either.

Griswold vs. Conneticut is more important because the court ruled there was a right to privacy in the US, while Eisenstadt v. Baird was a "simple" equal protection case.

Griswold vs. Conneticut is more important because the court ruled there was a right to privacy in the US, while Eisenstadt v. Baird was a "simple" equal protection case.
Yes, you're right. Sorry about that mistake.

Marbury (sp?) vs. Madison

Without it the court wouldn't be an equal branch and the rest wouldn't matter.

Marbury v. Madison. Main result was that the Supreme Court ruled that it most definitely did have the power of judicial review, ie the Supreme Court ruled that it can rule.

As for Nation States v. United States, all we have to do is somehow introduce John McCain to this game and get him to play. Then we have an NSer in the White House.

These are a bit too sexually themed, methinks.
Brown Vs. BOE was most important, because in my mind it got the ball rolling on civil rights rulings by the SC, but you're forgetting Important cases like Miranda Vs. Arizona. That's the one that stopped the police from being able to harass and threaten into a confession those too uneducated to know thier rights.