How can any educated person not think of Dred Scott and Plessy as Supreme Court decisions with which one disagrees? (I suppose it's possible that one doesn't think of them since neither has any precedent value now; and I suppose it's possible that one would implicitly think of only 20th century and beyond.)
Kelo is an obvious 21st century choice, plus I imagine most people disagree with either Bowers v. Hardwick or Lawrence v. Texas.
Posted by Matt Bruce at October 3, 2008 04:04 PMIn a similar vain to Bowers v. Hardwick/Lawrence v. Texas, I'm sure most people are opposed to one of Bakke or Bollinger.
Posted by: Paul at October 3, 2008 05:06 PM*vein*, ack, I saw that as soon as I hit "Post".
Posted by: Paul at October 3, 2008 05:07 PMOh, and I'm sure that many people aren't so happy with Engel v. Vitale, either. And now, I'll stop.
Posted by: Paul at October 3, 2008 05:09 PMIs Korematsu still in theory the law of the land? Decisions like this (and the presidential orders behind it) vs. the "worst president ever" rhetoric now in vogue over much more minor cases now always cracks me up.
Not to say that I agree with all of the GWOT tactics. Just that it is good to every now and then to pause in one's crusades against injustice, stupidity, etc. and realize just how much better things are now.
Posted by: Kubi at October 4, 2008 09:34 AM