7 ms·

The Supreme Court has made many awful rulings with respect to the first amendment. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire is another one. Just astoundingly awful

lr4444lr 4y ago
Not arguing that, but I don't think any subsequent case has ever been judged by any court where the prevailing opinion cited Chaplinsky.
Maursault 4y ago
> The Supreme Court has made many awful rulings with respect to the first amendment. I am astounded you'd bother to qualify that "with respect to the First Amendment." They've made stacks of awful rulings, period. Some of their greatest hits: Dred Scott v. Sanford; Plessy v. Ferguson; Hammer v. Dagenhart; Bush v. Gore; Kelo v. City of New London; DC v. Heller; Dobbs v. Jackson. The Supreme Court is supposed to be above politics but time and again proves it's a vehicle of partisan politics, and one megalomanic sociopath can slant the Court for decades.
- refurb 4y ago
  The Supreme Court is made up of humans, so I’m somewhat shocked when people are surprised they aren’t perfect.
  - ArnoVW 4y ago
    I'd argue the other way around. Judges have are humans and have opinions. But they must be principled, if anything. Lady justice has a blindfold after all. The Supreme Court is just that, 'Supreme'. So personally I'd expect supremely capable judges at such a complex and important post. The fact that that is considered 'quaint', is a testament to the current state of American democracy, and the self confidence of the Americans in it. I hope it's just a phase, and that you guys can work it out.
- DrFunke 4y ago
  >The Supreme Court is supposed to be above politics Huh? The purpose of SCOTUS is very much partisan politics and always has been. It's actually the nature of the job.
  - pjc50 4y ago
    That's not exactly how it's marketed to people though, is it? As a permanent unelected legislature it's basically the House of Lords.
- DuskStar 4y ago
  I'd personally put US v. Miller on the list instead of DC v. Heller. Wickard v. Filburn deserves a mention too. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
  - narrator 4y ago
    Oh yeah, Wickard is ridiculous. If you grow wheat in your backyard to feed to your own pigs, that's interstate commerce.
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      I’ll raise you a Gonzales v Raich, wherein the cultivation of 6 marijuana plants in a backyard for personal use is interstate commerce. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html
  - bbarn 4y ago
    Miller is an interesting one. Ruled that only weapons of war were protected, and now we're hearing "weapons of war have no place with the people"
    - DuskStar 4y ago
      Don't forget "machine guns aren't weapons of war" which is also quite a bit of a head scratcher!
- narrator 4y ago
  DC v. Heller is a great opinion to read for us Constitutional Law nerds though. Scalia really put the historical scholarship work in on that one digging up all that 1776 history. It is a very long and detailed treatise. If you are a gun control fanatic, I could see where that one would rub you the wrong way, but it was a fantastic piece of legal scholarship.
  - ahelwer 4y ago
    It was a whole lot of motivated speculation about how some people were thinking hundreds of years ago and how they would interpret contemporary weapons. It is indistinguishable from a reddit post with fancier words. Scalia would have been happy to hear you think it's a fantastic piece of legal scholarship, though - it was his job to dress up his opinions in that way. I quite enjoyed this account of it: https://www.fivefourpod.com/episodes/dc-v-heller/ https://www.fivefourpod.com/episodes/dc-v-heller/
    - rayiner 4y ago
      By that logic, should we limit free speech rights because the framers didn’t contemplate the web?
  - rayiner 4y ago
    Heller was also the product of a decade of scholarship by liberals like Larry Tribe and Akhil Amar. The dudes who had just overthrown their government with muskets they had lying around the farm really intended for firearms ownership to be a private right. Least surprising thing ever.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      The opinion of the court in Heller seems pretty explicit about not establishing a private right for citizens to bear military weapons (just sweep the whole opinion for the word "military"; it comes up multiple times.)
      - 4y ago
- rayiner 4y ago
  What’s wrong with Bush v. Gore?
ttfkam 4y ago
Conflating wealth with speech is another recent SCOTUS boondoggle. • Citizens United v. FEC • Speechnow.org v. FEC • McCutcheon v. FEC Corporate personhood with rights afforded to actual citizens but separate from actual citizens laid the groundwork for a whole mosaic of wrongheaded schools of thought. "Amoral, effectively immortal fictional entities can be created at will with the rights and privileges of ordinary citizens. What could go wrong?"
- gruez 4y ago
  >Corporate personhood with rights afforded to actual citizens but separate from actual citizens laid the groundwork for a whole mosaic of wrongheaded schools of thought. >"Amoral, effectively immortal fictional entities can be created at will with the rights and privileges of ordinary citizens. What could go wrong?" You realize that the "immortal fictional entities" you speak of are just groups of "ordinary citizens", right? That's the logic behind the Citizens United ruling, ie. that ordinary citizens don't lose their free speech rights when they band together (either as a corporation or a labor union).
  - edmundsauto 4y ago
    Not necessarily citizens - can't corporations be owned by foreign entities? (I'm not sure that changes the overall argument, but it speaks to a common fear - influence coming from people who don't have the nation's best interests at heart)

lr4444lr 4y ago

Not arguing that, but I don't think any subsequent case has ever been judged by any court where the prevailing opinion cited Chaplinsky.

Maursault 4y ago

> The Supreme Court has made many awful rulings with respect to the first amendment. I am astounded you'd bother to qualify that "with respect to the First Amendment." They've made stacks of awful rulings, period. Some of their greatest hits: Dred Scott v. Sanford; Plessy v. Ferguson; Hammer v. Dagenhart; Bush v. Gore; Kelo v. City of New London; DC v. Heller; Dobbs v. Jackson. The Supreme Court is supposed to be above politics but time and again proves it's a vehicle of partisan politics, and one megalomanic sociopath can slant the Court for decades.

refurb 4y ago
The Supreme Court is made up of humans, so I’m somewhat shocked when people are surprised they aren’t perfect.
- ArnoVW 4y ago
  I'd argue the other way around. Judges have are humans and have opinions. But they must be principled, if anything. Lady justice has a blindfold after all. The Supreme Court is just that, 'Supreme'. So personally I'd expect supremely capable judges at such a complex and important post. The fact that that is considered 'quaint', is a testament to the current state of American democracy, and the self confidence of the Americans in it. I hope it's just a phase, and that you guys can work it out.
DrFunke 4y ago
>The Supreme Court is supposed to be above politics Huh? The purpose of SCOTUS is very much partisan politics and always has been. It's actually the nature of the job.
- pjc50 4y ago
  That's not exactly how it's marketed to people though, is it? As a permanent unelected legislature it's basically the House of Lords.
DuskStar 4y ago
I'd personally put US v. Miller on the list instead of DC v. Heller. Wickard v. Filburn deserves a mention too. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
- narrator 4y ago
  Oh yeah, Wickard is ridiculous. If you grow wheat in your backyard to feed to your own pigs, that's interstate commerce.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    I’ll raise you a Gonzales v Raich, wherein the cultivation of 6 marijuana plants in a backyard for personal use is interstate commerce. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html
- bbarn 4y ago
  Miller is an interesting one. Ruled that only weapons of war were protected, and now we're hearing "weapons of war have no place with the people"
  - DuskStar 4y ago
    Don't forget "machine guns aren't weapons of war" which is also quite a bit of a head scratcher!
narrator 4y ago
DC v. Heller is a great opinion to read for us Constitutional Law nerds though. Scalia really put the historical scholarship work in on that one digging up all that 1776 history. It is a very long and detailed treatise. If you are a gun control fanatic, I could see where that one would rub you the wrong way, but it was a fantastic piece of legal scholarship.
- ahelwer 4y ago
  It was a whole lot of motivated speculation about how some people were thinking hundreds of years ago and how they would interpret contemporary weapons. It is indistinguishable from a reddit post with fancier words. Scalia would have been happy to hear you think it's a fantastic piece of legal scholarship, though - it was his job to dress up his opinions in that way. I quite enjoyed this account of it: https://www.fivefourpod.com/episodes/dc-v-heller/ https://www.fivefourpod.com/episodes/dc-v-heller/
  - rayiner 4y ago
    By that logic, should we limit free speech rights because the framers didn’t contemplate the web?
- rayiner 4y ago
  Heller was also the product of a decade of scholarship by liberals like Larry Tribe and Akhil Amar. The dudes who had just overthrown their government with muskets they had lying around the farm really intended for firearms ownership to be a private right. Least surprising thing ever.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    The opinion of the court in Heller seems pretty explicit about not establishing a private right for citizens to bear military weapons (just sweep the whole opinion for the word "military"; it comes up multiple times.)
    - 4y ago
rayiner 4y ago
What’s wrong with Bush v. Gore?

ttfkam 4y ago

Conflating wealth with speech is another recent SCOTUS boondoggle. • Citizens United v. FEC • Speechnow.org v. FEC • McCutcheon v. FEC Corporate personhood with rights afforded to actual citizens but separate from actual citizens laid the groundwork for a whole mosaic of wrongheaded schools of thought. "Amoral, effectively immortal fictional entities can be created at will with the rights and privileges of ordinary citizens. What could go wrong?"

gruez 4y ago
>Corporate personhood with rights afforded to actual citizens but separate from actual citizens laid the groundwork for a whole mosaic of wrongheaded schools of thought. >"Amoral, effectively immortal fictional entities can be created at will with the rights and privileges of ordinary citizens. What could go wrong?" You realize that the "immortal fictional entities" you speak of are just groups of "ordinary citizens", right? That's the logic behind the Citizens United ruling, ie. that ordinary citizens don't lose their free speech rights when they band together (either as a corporation or a labor union).
- edmundsauto 4y ago
  Not necessarily citizens - can't corporations be owned by foreign entities? (I'm not sure that changes the overall argument, but it speaks to a common fear - influence coming from people who don't have the nation's best interests at heart)