Jump to content
270soft Forum

Supreme Court Ruling Poll (Other one was done incorrectly :p)


What (In your opinion) was the worst Supreme Court Ruling?  

20 members have voted

  1. 1. Pick 3 Choices

    • Dredd Scott V. Sandford (Declared that black people weren’t citizens, and that slavery was legal and moral.)
    • Buck V. Bell (Allowed for disabled and retarded people to be sterilized)
    • Terry V. Ohio (Allows police to frisk anyone without probable cause if they have a ‘reasonable suspicion’)
    • FEC V. Citizens United (Allows for unlimited private spending in politics)
    • Roe V. Wade (De-facto legalized abortion)
    • Plessy V. Ferguson (Established the ‘separate but equal’ segregation principle)
    • Bush V. Gore (Ended the recount of the 2000 election results in Florida, where Bush was ahead by ~500 votes.)
    • Shelby County V. Holder (Allows states and counties to change voting rules, processes, or methods without federal approval.)
    • Bowers V. Hardwick (Upheld laws criminalizing consensual gay sex.)
    • Korematsu V. United States (Upheld the Japanese Internment Camps.)
    • Kelo V. New London (Upheld Eminent Domain, the practice of seizing private property [with compensation] for use if it benefits the community as a whole.)
    • Hammer V. Dagenhart (Prevented the federal government from banning or limiting child labor.)
    • Other (Comment Below)
      0


Recommended Posts

Very very hard to decide. There are cases where the Court was morally wrong but played a little, others when she wasn't particulary morally wrong (like Bush v Gore) but set the table for nightmares (I think that if recounts are delayed Trump could actually try a Bush v Gore if he is ahead in first results in enough swing states) or Shelby County where the SC opened the door for electoral or partisan political segregation.

Of course Dredd Scoot and Buck remain among the worst in a moral point of view and in consequences too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Edouard said:

Very very hard to decide. There are cases where the Court was morally wrong but played a little, others when she wasn't particulary morally wrong (like Bush v Gore) but set the table for nightmares (I think that if recounts are delayed Trump could actually try a Bush v Gore if he is ahead in first results in enough swing states) or Shelby County where the SC opened the door for electoral or partisan political segregation.

Of course Dredd Scoot and Buck remain among the worst in a moral point of view and in consequences too.

Yeah. Dredd Scott and Buck V Bell are the only two that were easy choices for me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

I picked all the ones I thought were bad. Oops.

And you didn't pick Buck v. Bell? :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SilentLiberty said:

I did not, and most states have their own wording on it or don't follow it at all anyway. 

But theoretically you're happy for a state to decide to forcibly sterilize the disabled?

I find that disgusting.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, admin_270 said:

Go easy.

The idea is that my life, my sister's life, many kind, considerate, caring people's lives are worthless. I'm not sure I'm the one who needs to be warned. I'll attack the idea not the person, but a person who believes that idea wants to spend a great deal of time thinking about what it says about them.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

I did not, and most states have their own wording on it or don't follow it at all anyway. 

Why not? What was your rationale?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zenobiyl said:

Why not? What was your rationale?

It's better than death. I'm in favor of voluntary sterilization, I'm not in favor of the state forcing anything on people but would rather that than death.

Disabilities and mental illness are something we don't understand as a whole even still. There have been times where rather than being sterilized people with disabilities or mental illness were killed. In those contexts sterilization would likely have been preferred over death. We're getting better at how we handle disabilities and mental illnesses as well as helping those with those disabilities and illnesses. One of the steps we as a country have taken in the right direction was the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Perverts because of castration, which is a form of sterilization. Chemical castration is not and so that is probably most ideal as it's not necessarily permanent. It's unfortunate that perverts are latching themselves on to the LGBTQ+ community as well as claiming it's a mental illness or a disability, which links it together. However even in those cases I'm still in favor of life so sterilization is preferred to death.

This is kind of shit example I know, however, it also shows how much we change as we learn more and become more open minded. So the Salem Witch Trials, in that case I'd rather we didn't do anything to the supposed witches but in theory sterilization would have been better than them being hanged. (I say in theory because medical practices were shit back then)

Sterilization would be preferred over death and so that's my rationale.

Edited by SilentLiberty
Trails should have been Trials oops.
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

Sterilization would be preferred over death and so that's my rationale.

But.. but.. but, who is saying we should kill people with disabilities?

You're not being asked if sterilization is better than execution, you're being asked if forced sterilization is bad. How is this a difficult question?

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

It's better than death. I'm in favor of voluntary sterilization, I'm not in favor of the state forcing anything on people but would rather that than death.

Disabilities and mental illness are something we don't understand as a whole even still. There have been times where rather than being sterilized people with disabilities or mental illness were killed. In those contexts sterilization would likely have been preferred over death. We're getting better at how we handle disabilities and mental illnesses as well as helping those with those disabilities and illnesses. One of the steps we as a country have taken in the right direction was the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Perverts because of castration, which is a form of sterilization. Chemical castration is not and so that is probably most ideal as it's not necessarily permanent. It's unfortunate that perverts are latching themselves on to the LGBTQ+ community as well as claiming it's a mental illness or a disability, which links it together. However even in those cases I'm still in favor of life so sterilization is preferred to death.

This is kind of shit example I know, however, it also shows how much we change as we learn more and become more open minded. So the Salem Witch Trials, in that case I'd rather we didn't do anything to the supposed witches but in theory sterilization would have been better than them being hanged. (I say in theory because medical practices were shit back then)

Sterilization would be preferred over death and so that's my rationale.

Buck V. Bell wasn’t about voluntary sterilization, but government-enforced sterilization. 

“It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.”

This is an excerpt from the majority opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

But.. but.. but, who is saying we should kill people with disabilities?

You're not being asked if sterilization is better than execution, you're being asked if forced sterilization is bad. How is this a difficult question?

In the majority opinion they talk about it.

1 minute ago, Zenobiyl said:

Buck V. Bell wasn’t about voluntary sterilization, but government-enforced sterilization. 

“It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.”

This is an excerpt from the majority opinion.

Yes I touched on both voluntary and involuntary. 

Involuntary is "bad" I didn't select it with the other ones I marked as "bad" because the context of when it was happening. The world has largely gone against involuntary anyway. I'm against the government forcing anything on people, but especially death. Legislation has been written and states have largely changed their own laws based around the ruling anyway. Is it bad to commit genocide via sterilization? Yes, absolutely. Was the court ruling bad? Better than the alternative of killing people for being disabled. The other cases I selected as "bad" either haven't been fixed (either at a state level or through legislation that while not directed at the ruling largely outdates it (like the ADA)) or were racially motivated, one leading to a civil war. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark_W said:

The idea is that my life, my sisters life, many kind, considerate, caring people's lives are worthless. I'm not sure I'm the one who needs to be warned. I'll attack the idea not the person, but a person who believes that idea wants to spend a great deal of time thinking about what it says about them.

You're reading that into the response. Again, go easy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

In the majority opinion they talk about it.

Yes I touched on both voluntary and involuntary. 

Involuntary is "bad" I didn't select it with the other ones I marked as "bad" because the context of when it was happening. The world has largely gone against involuntary anyway. I'm against the government forcing anything on people, but especially death. Legislation has been written and states have largely changed their own laws based around the ruling anyway. Is it bad to commit genocide via sterilization? Yes, absolutely. Was the court ruling bad? Better than the alternative of killing people for being disabled. The other cases I selected as "bad" either haven't been fixed (either at a state level or through legislation that while not directed at the ruling largely outdates it (like the ADA)) or were racially motivated, one leading to a civil war. 

I’m struggling to understand your point. Are you saying that Buck V. Bell wasn’t that bad because it didn’t permit killing disabled people directly?

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Zenobiyl said:

I’m struggling to understand your point. Are you saying that Buck V. Bell wasn’t that bad because it didn’t permit killing disabled people directly?

Yes, that'd be in simplest terms I suppose

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SilentLiberty said:

Sterilization would be preferred over death and so that's my rationale.

What makes you think people who were forcibly steralised post-1927 would have been killed in the event of the Supreme Court ruling the other way? Is that assumption based on anything?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mark_W said:

What makes you think people who were forcibly steralised post-1927 would have been killed in the event of the Supreme Court ruling the other way? Is that assumption based on anything?

How shitty people are. I think you took it to personally in any event. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

How shitty people are. I think you took it to personally in any event. 

I didn't really take it personally, I just wanted to use my own situation to hopefully make you think about what it looked like you were saying. From my perspective when I challenged you on it not being a bad decision your response, 'I did not, and most states have their own wording on it or don't follow it at all anyway', wasn't the rebuttal of my challenge that I hoped or expected you to give.

I completely disagree that allowing states to involuntarily sterilise the disabled, makes the state killing disabled people less likely. In fact quite the opposite, I think once you make it accepted that a certain group of people are lesser, the latter becomes a lot more likely. You don't deal with ignorance by giving the ignorant a bit of what they want at the expense of other people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of bad decisions actually.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...