An annual American ritual that seems a treasured constant is wrapping up the old year or starting the new one by compiling “best of” lists. This is sort of like that, but when it comes to government, it’s probably easier to compile a “worst” list given how politicians, administrators, and bureaucrats seem to work harder at failing than “getting things right.”
Alas, the Supreme Court doesn’t seem immune to this routine.
. . .when it comes to government, it’s probably easier to compile a “worst” list given how politicians, administrators, and bureaucrats seem to work harder at failing than “getting things right.”
Alas, the Supreme Court doesn’t seem immune to this routine.
So, this is not a simple year-end review but a national look back at some of the boneheaded decisions SCOTUS has handed down over its nearly 240 years of its existence. Historians generally list Scott v. Sandford as the worst decision the high court has made. In it, the court ruled the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, squashing the idea that slaves who crossed into a free state could claim their liberty.
It is ironic—almost humorously so were it not for how that determination affected human lives—the court’s opinion focused on the Fifth Amendment, specifically equal protection under the law and due process as the backbone for the decision. The result of Dred Scott was certainly a stinker. Still, I believe an argument could be made there should be other contenders for the “Worst of SCOTUS.” After all, Dred Scott was handed down in 1857; we’ve witnessed over a century and a half of new cases brought before the highest court in the land.
Perhaps it’s time to see what’s gone on in the years intervening between then and now. Of course, there have been some good verdict, the most obvious being 1954’s Brown v. Board of Education.
From 1961 to 1966, the Fourth and Fifth amendments were strengthened through, in chronological order, Brady v. Maryland, Mapp v. Ohio, and Miranda v. Arizona. Brady buttressed the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause by establishing the requirement for the state to disclose exculpatory evidence to any defendant while Mapp solidified the Fourth Amendment, clarifying the limits to search and seizure. Miranda returned to the Fifth Amendment’s core principle to protect citizens from self-incrimination without arrestees knowing their rights.
A secondary benefit of Miranda may be in the fact that—by forcing police to recite the arrestees’ rights—the act allows for a likely-heated, potentially emotional situation to level out. In short, by inserting a ritual of sorts between pursuit and capture, things cool out.
Then there were the protections afforded the First Amendment through Texas v. Johnson in 1989 regarding “offensive” speech and the Second when the court ruled on Heller v. the District of Columbia in 2008.
However, I’m not here to congratulate the court since recent history has seen its share of really dumb decisions. The one many point to is Roe v. Wade, where the justices saw Constitutional language simply not there, a practice continued in the case of gay marriage where “love” apparently became the deciding factor. Or note how Chief Justice Roberts protected Obamacare in much the same way defenders of Social Security pulled a bait-and-switch by insisting it was not a tax publicly to get it on the books and then maintaining its Constitutionality on the basis of Congressional power of taxation once confronted in court.
Roberts protected Obamacare in much the same way defenders of Social Security pulled a bait-and-switch
However, and I’m here to nominate an early 2000’s decision as possibly the worst SCOTUS ruling in recent memory, perhaps even displacing Dred Scott the worst on record. That decision was the Kelo v. New London case handed down in 2005.
As a refresher, the case grew out of a new interpretation of what counted as “the public good” when families were forced from their homes through eminent domain. This ejection wasn’t carried out to build a new bridge or airport or public school—although one can counter how much public education has served any “public good,” but that’s another argument for another time.
The argument against the Kelo family bringing the case before the bench was based on the notion that future taxes the municipality would collect from displacing private property owners to install an industrial complex of pharmaceutical manufacturers would better serve the public than the piddling property taxes collected at the time from the existing homeowners.
Instead of government taking over land for actual physical infrastructure, the city argued it could legally wrangle the land for some potential increased income stream. This broadened the phrase “public use” to damn near anything that could be put under the umbrella of the pretzel logic concocted by professional politicians.
And the city won!
Public backlash. . .had a number of state legislatures backpedaling
Public backlash following this ruling had a number of state legislatures backpedaling to propose laws clarifying potential tax collections were not sufficient proof the public was being served. The promise was to expressly forbid government from taking private property to benefit some other private entity for purposes of development or capital gains. Unfortunately, that was—as usual—a dog-and-pony show given that only 12 of the 43 states ducking for cover from voters actually delivered on the promise in any meaningful way.
Private property has been a basic tenet of British Common Law since 1066. It formed the bedrock of the Founding Fathers.
Kelo undermined centuries of faith in protecting people’s land from the whims of the government. Private property has been a basic tenet of British Common Law since 1066. It formed the bedrock of the Founding Fathers. James Madison himself argued property rights as connected to personal rights in Federalist 54.
It is a bit of karma that the banking bubble bursting from the housing crisis a few years later had the businesses involved backing out of the deal, leaving New London with neither the future nor the recent monies it had envisioned like so many Scrooge McDucks, but that is little comfort given the result of this ruling going forward.
Comments