The 7 Worst Things Protected by the Supreme Court By AwesomeBalla [13 more lists]

The Supreme Court is often a necessary evil. Many times the Court has voted in favor of the party that 'seems wrong' in effort to uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that we all value, most recently voting in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church's right to free speech when they protest the funerals of our troops. Here are seven times when the Supreme Court's 'right' decision was actually oh-so-wrong.

Print Info View Views: 7448 Items: 7

< >

Show: 5 25

Rank Name

1

Snyder v. Phelps

Protected: The Westboro Baptist Church's right to protest at military funerals and spread hate speech during the worst day of troops' families' lives.

If you aren't familiar with these "God-loving", everything-else-hating hate mongers, allow me to introduce them.

These are the people who protest outside of military funerals, and tons of other public events they deem "evil," with signs eloquently declaring that "God hates F*gs" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."

The "logic" behind these nutcases' views is that everything that is wrong in the world is God's punishment for America's acceptance of homosexuality and everything else they deem unacceptable: including Catholicism, Judaism and Comi-Con nerds. Seriously.

In summation: soldiers die in war because God hates gay people. It's basically as simple as that. It's the most well-organized and well-funded hate group (excuse me, "church") since the KKK, who has actually denounced the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church.

As one can imagine, having these "Christian" homophobes at the funeral of a loved one is very upsetting, and one man decided to do something about it. Albert Snyder was the brave soul who took on the church and its leader, Fred Phelps, after they protested the funeral of Snyder's son Matthew, a Marine.

Initially Snyder was awarded compensation for his emotional and physical stress, including a worsening of his diabetes and depression. However in an 8-1 appeal's decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church and their First Amendment rights.

This case is the embodiment of Voltaire's famous quote: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Source
2

Plessy v. Ferguson

Protected: Segregation of Blacks and Whites (which is only okay while doing laundry)

If you made it through the public education system in the United States without once hearing the names Plessy or Ferguson, go back to school and demand a refund on your parents' taxes because they surely failed you.

Plessy v. Ferguson is one of the oldest and most famous Supreme Court cases of all time that set a scary precedent for the battle over school segregation.

In 1890, Louisiana passed an act that allowed its trains to segregate cars by race. Two years later, Homer Plessy (a man with 1/8 African ancestry) bought a ticket for the "whites only" car and was in turn arrested for violating the state's "Separate Car Act." Plessy took his case to court, arguing that the Act violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Having already lost twice in lower courts, Plessy lost once again in an epic fail on the part of our Judicial Branch who ruled that "Separate but Equal" was legal, marking another 60 plus years of racial segregation.

Source
3

Korematsu v. United States

Protected: Keeping 110,000 Japanese people in ""War Relocation Camps"" after Pearl Harbor.

When the United States entered World War II after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, a relatively ignored segment of the immigrant population became the scapegoat of America's fear and anger.

Because of Japan's attack and their subsequent enemy status to the U.S. and Allied forces, President F.D.R. deemed it necessary to move persons of Japanese ancestry living on the Pacific coast to ""war relocation camps."

These only slightly less horrifying equivalent of German concentration camps became home to over 110,000 Japanese and Japanese-Americans beginning in 1942.

One man, Fred Korematsu, decided to ignore the President's decree and staked his ground and did not relocate, feeling that it violated his personal rights. He was eventually arrested and convicted of violating the executive order.

In 1944, Korematsu took his case to the Supreme Court who ""[could] not say that the war-making branches of the Government did not have ground for believing that in a critical hour such persons 'constituted a menace to the national defense and safety.'"" And thus, the internments were found legal and the ruling against Korematsu was upheld.

Source
4

Smelt v. United States

Protected: Anti-Gay Marriage Laws

Here's a case that still has no real end in sight.

In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act was signed in to fruition by then-president Bill Clinton. This act stated the "legal definition" of marriage as being only between a man and a woman.

Fast-forward to 2009 and the case of Smelt v. the United States. This case was brought to the Supreme Court by a same-sex couple who wanted their union to be legally and nationally recognized. The Court ruled against them making it another case in which the Court ruled in favor of upholding federal law.

Then on February 23, 2011, it was announced that President Obama ruled the act unconstitutional and would stop enforcing it. However, a week later, current Speaker of the House John Boehner publicly declared that he would be taking steps to defend it.

But if past anti-gay politicians can set precedent, Boehner might just have a secret love for young guys in their early 20s that he can hire to "carry his suitcases" for him on trips and is merely protecting them from being miserable in marriages like straight people.

Source
5

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier

Protected: students do not have freedom of speech in public schools.

Who would've thought that a high school in St. Louis, Missouri would become the breeding ground for a Supreme Court case in an argument for free speech?

In 1983 at Hazelwood East High School, then principal Robert Reynolds decided to remove a couple of pages from the student-run school newspaper because they contained what he deemed to be unsavory topics like teen pregnancy and divorce. The students felt that the removal of these pages was censorship and violated their right to free speech.

The Supreme Court eventually heard the case and voted in favor of the principal's decision because the school's paper was technically not a ""public forum"" and therefore could be held to a lesser degree of the First Amendment.

The Court's ruling also declared that the principal did not have to allow the publication of any materials that caused ""legitimate pedagogical concerns.""

Just remember kids, the principal is your PAL!

Source
6

New Jersey v. T.L.O.

Protected: Students relinquishing their basic rights while attending a school.

Another day in high school, another day in court...

In 1985 a school in New Jersey accused a student of smoking in one of its bathrooms, violating the school's rules. Although the student denied being the one smoking, the administration searched her bag and found not only cigarettes, but marijuana and other supplies they felt made her capable of selling marijuana at school.

The student tried to have the evidence withheld citing the Fourth Amendment, arguing that simply having cigarettes on her did not violate school code and that she shouldn't have been searched for evidence in the first place and then the weed would have, and should have, never been found.

In spite of her arguments, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 in favor of the school saying that any search done by the school could be done so without a warrant as long as it was "reasonable under the circumstances."

And while the dissenters argued that students should not, and do not, relinquish all privacy when entering school, those in favor said that the "the interest of teachers and school officials in maintaining order and discipline in school" trumped the students' right to privacy.

This sucks and calls for possibly investing in a backpack with more hidden compartments (and remembering to leave your drogas at home). But really, when you're in school you're not really "free." We've always known this, but is it for better or worse?

Source
7

Miranda v. Arizona

Protected: Rapist & Kidnapper. (This case did set precedent for people being guaranteed to have their rights read to them in a way so that this kind of thing doesn't happen again, but still, who wouldn't want to send a kidnapping rapist to jail?)

While no one of sane mind would argue that denying a person their Constitutional rights is a good idea, the case of Miranda v. Arizona created an unusual precedent.

Ernesto Miranda was arrested in 1963 for the kidnapping and rape of a young woman.

After two hours of questioning, the police got a signed confession out of Miranda, a statement that included the standard line: ""This statement has been made voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion or promises of immunity and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make can and will be used against me.""

However, since Miranda was never verbally read his rights, his lawyer argued to have his confession thrown-out but the judge overruled and Miranda was convicted.

But Miranda's case was so controversial that it made its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated and that he should be retried. In his retrial, the confession was indeed ignored, but he was ultimately convicted again of his crimes and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison.

This important case set the precedent for all f*ture arrests and made the reading of a person's ""Miranda Rights"" necessary before any police questioning.

Only after a person waives their ""Miranda Rights""(essentially the Fifth Amendment) are they allowed to be questioned by the police.

One can't help but argue after all this that if a person insists on a confession, with or without a warning, they should more or less be able to deliver one. The court's job is to sentence criminals for their crimes so you'd think having a helping hand from the criminal themselves would be permitted. Apparently, that is not the case.

Source

Showing items 1 - 5 of 7

Snyder v. Phelps

Smelt v. United States

New Jersey v. T.L.O.