Knicked from a couple people

[jeffxandra]

As evidenced by Katie Couric, Sarah Palin is unable to name any Supreme Court Case other than Roe v. Wade.

The Rules: Post info about ONE Supreme Court decision, modern or historic to your lj. (Any decision, as long as it's not Roe v. Wade.) For those who see this on your f-list, take the meme to your OWN lj to spread the fun.

One I haven't seen yet is Marbury vs Madison, which established the precedent of judicial review.

Quoting the wikipedia entry for the details:

This case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia by President John Adams shortly before leaving office, but whose commission was not delivered as required by John Marshall, Adams' Secretary of State. When Thomas Jefferson assumed office, he ordered the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to withhold Marbury's and several other men's commissions. Being unable to assume the appointed offices without the commission documents, Marbury and three others petitioned the Court to force Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury. The Supreme Court denied Marbury's petition, holding that the statute upon which he based his claim was unconstitutional.

Comments

[metromancer.livejournal.com]

Well, thank CHRIST she didn't say Roe v. Wade were two ways to cross the Potomac...

... but seriously:

[metromancer.livejournal.com]

Texas v. Johnson (1989) - Allowed the burning of the American flag as an expression of an idea, no matter how offensive it is.

Re: ... but seriously:

[jeffxandra.livejournal.com]

You're supposed to put it in your own journal numbnuts..

Re: ... but seriously:

[metromancer.livejournal.com]

Nah; I'd rather my LJ to remain apolitical. (smirk)

[marag.livejournal.com]

I've read about this case several times, but for some reason I've got a mental block against figuring out who did what to whom. I really need to sit down and read about it carefully, since I think my problem is reading too fast.

[pneumatik.livejournal.com]

I don't think it really established judicial review. Judicial review was already part of the English common law system when the colonies broke away. It did clearly establish the supremacy of the Constitution, though, even to the extent that it limited SCOTUS' own power (no writs of mandamus, I believe).

What's really funny is that even thought the court overturned a law because it was unconstitutional, they effectively do what they struck the law for anyway, all the time.

[jeffxandra.livejournal.com]

As a precedent in the United States, I would say it did establish judicial review. Indeed, it was the first significant test of the Judicial branch's role in checks and balances.

As to the rest of it, I would concur.