Recent Supreme Court decisions conservatives dislike?

[JKellyMap]

Both Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell have been left speechless during debates when asked if they disagree with any Supreme Court decisions (presumably meaning, any decisions from recent years.)

While neither candidate displayed much knowledge of the Supreme Court and its recent history, I did start to wonder – have there been recent SCOTUS decisions which a conservative candidate would generally be expected to have objected to?

I don’t ask this in a snarky, “everything that SCOTUS has done since Thurgood Marshall has been pro-conservative” kind of way. I’m genuinely curious, because in my own limited knowledge of recent SCOTUS stuff, nothing comes readily to mind.

(But I do put this in GD rather than GQ, because whether a legal decision is “conservative” or not can sometimes be debatable.)

[John_Mace]

These come readily to mind

Grutter v. Bollinger

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. The 5-4 decision was announced on June 23, 2003.

Kelo v. City of New London

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1] was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan which promised 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues. The Court held in a 5–4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible “public use” under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Lawrence v. Texas

Lawrence v Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003),[1] is a landmark United States Supreme Court case. In the 6-3 ruling, the justices struck down the sodomy law in Texas. The court had previously addressed the same issue in 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick, where it upheld a challenged Georgia statute, not finding a constitutional protection of sexual privacy.

Locke v. Davey

Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of a Washington publicly funded scholarship program which excluded students pursuing a “degree in theology.” This case examined the “room… between the two Religion Clauses”, the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause.

Roper v. Simmons

Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) was a decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18. The 5-4 decision overruled the Court’s prior ruling upholding such sentences on offenders above or at the age of 16, in Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989), overturning statutes in 25 states that had the penalty set lower.

I’m sure **Bricker **can come up with a slew of others.

[Richard_Parker]

Conservatives, like liberals, are a diverse bunch. And there’s dislike and then there’s dislike; certainly nothing in the last decade rises to the level of Roe. That said, John has a good list. Off the top of my head, I would add the War on Terror decisions (Rasul, Hamdi, Hamdan, Boumediene), the global warming standing case (Mass v. EPA), a couple of Fourth Amendment decisions (including Arizona v. Gant), and the recent life without parole case (Graham v. Florida).

[JKellyMap]

Thanks, guys. Of the cases mentioned so far, only a few, IMHO, would both: 1. be well-known enough that a candidate might be expected to have heard about it; and 2. disagreeing the decision would not be likely to be construed by some as radically right-wing: These are the New London eminent domain case, and maybe a few of the “War on Terror decisions”.

[John_Mace]

@JKellyMap

Thanks, guys. Of the cases mentioned so far, only a few, IMHO, would both: 1. be well-known enough that a candidate might be expected to have heard about it; and 2. disagreeing the decision would not be likely to be construed by some as radically right-wing: These are the New London eminent domain case, and maybe a few of the “War on Terror decisions”.

All the cases I listed were widely published at that time. I’m certain that the two “radical right-wing” people mentioned in the OP would disagree with all of them.

[Larry_Borgia]

I don’t understand how O’Donnell or Palin’s advisors could have left them uninformed about Kelo. It was quite a stir at the time. There was some group who was trying to seize Souter’s house so they could build a resort there. Not sure how serious they were.

[boytyperanma]

Christine O’Donnel did follow through and put up three cases she disagrees with.

Boumediene v. Bush- A decision holding that all US prisoner have a right to habeus corpus

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld- A decision determining the President does not have the authority to set up special war crimes tribunals

So she holds the opinion the broken government that can’t do anything right should be able to secretly arrest and detain people then set up whatever mock trial they want for those people.

Kelo v. City of New London- decision reconfirming the right of the government to use eminent domain, even if the land use would be for a private corporation.

Hey look at that I might kinda agree with her, it was a bad decision. Not really the worst decision IMO, you’d have to go back to the earlier precedent to find where eminent domain took a wrong turn.

[Digital_Stimulus]

@boytyperanma

Christine O’Donnel did follow through and put up three cases she disagrees with.

I want to see someone (e.g., a reporter) follow up on this – I suspect that she still couldn’t name any of the three if asked. In other words, someone from the campaign put those up; I’d guess she’s still clueless.

[John_Mace]

@Digital_Stimulus

@boytyperanma

Christine O’Donnel did follow through and put up three cases she disagrees with.

I want to see someone (e.g., a reporter) follow up on this – I suspect that she still couldn’t name any of the three if asked. In other words, someone from the campaign put those up; I’d guess she’s still clueless.

How do you know she doesn’t have them written on her hand?

[Digital_Stimulus]

@John_Mace

@Digital_Stimulus

I want to see someone (e.g., a reporter) follow up on this – I suspect that she still couldn’t name any of the three if asked. In other words, someone from the campaign put those up; I’d guess she’s still clueless.

How do you know she doesn’t have them written on her hand?

Good point. O’Donnell mimicked Palin in her clueless answer, might as well assume she’ll mimic her in other ways also.

On that note: is it too much to ask that if she actually wins, she’d also quit before her term is up?

[John_Mace]

@Digital_Stimulus

@John_Mace

How do you know she doesn’t have them written on her hand?

Good point. O’Donnell mimicked Palin in her clueless answer, might as well assume she’ll mimic her in other ways also.

On that note: is it too much to ask that if she actually wins, she’d also quit before her term is up?

You betcha!

[markdash]

How about Gonzales v Raich?

[MikeB4]

If I had to pick only one SCOTUS case, it would be Kelo. The Supreme Court voted 5-4 in favor of the City of New London. Sandra Day O’Connor was the only liberal to vote in favor of the property owners. She was joined in her dissent by Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and William Rehnquist, three conservatives.

But O’Connor was prescient in her Kelo dissent when she wrote that “the fallout from this decision will not be random . . . the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more.”

Those of us who have faced the threat of eminent domain know two things: It is a sobering experience and private property owners do not stand on a level playing field legally, politically or economically.

More “taking” is on its way driven — not by “economic development takings” like Kelo in Connecticut — but by energy companies in search of shale gas (as in Barnett shale, Marcellus shale, and more).

The pursuit of these gas-rich shales brings with it more pipelines and more underground gas storage fields – and that (pipelines & storage fields) always means eminent domain.

And in states like Pennsylvania, the gas industry and some legislators are talking up “forced pooling” which will permit gas companies to seize gas under your property, even if you refuse to sign a lease.

Alexandra Klass, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School, wrote an article in 2008 titled, “The Frontier of Eminent Domain.” She raises the question: “Why aren’t Kelo activists also incensed over natural resource development takings?”

Indeed. The excellent Institute for Justice of Kelo fame declines to intervene in energy/utility “takings” because, they told me, of the “public good” premise. The Institute should reconsider what support it can offer in this expanding “market” for eminent domain abuse.

The stories are horrendous; but property owners can fight back. Our two-year battle against Houston-based Spectra Energy which seized our property rights for an underground gas storage field led to the development of a website. If you want to understand the adverse effects of this type of eminent domain, refer to this post: <A href=“Shale Property Rights » Blog Archive » Judge Kim Gibson” > Spectra Energy</A>

Or here: Shale Property Rights » Blog Archive » Judge Kim Gibson

Private property rights are so fundamental that founding fathers such as Samuel Adams described it as an “essential” right and wrote, “that no man can justly take the property of another without his consent.”

[Bricker]

Had I been asked this question, I’d have pointed out that there are two meanings associated with the phrase “disagreed with.”

I disagreed with the result of Kyllo v. US – that is, I feel that police should be able to use an infrared scanner to look at your house without a warrant; your infrared rays are, like visible light, something you radiate to the outside world with no expectation of privacy.

But I acknowledge that a reasonable person can read “search” and reach a different result. The result of Kyllo is an unwise outcome as far as governance, but I admit it arises from a fair reading of the text of the constitution.

I disagree with Kelo v. New London because I don’t think that the takings clause can be fairly read to permit taking of property for private ownership. This decision flies in the face of the text.

So one can disagree with a result, while acknowledging that an appropriate analytical method was used to reach it. Or one can disagree with the analytical method employed to reach a result.

[Robot_Arm]

@John_Mace

These come readily to mind…

I thought we weren’t supposed to do people’s homework for them.

[Ludovic]

Kelo does answer the basic question quite nicely: conservatives are generally opposed to it. However, when attempting to draw a political distinction between conservatives and liberals, it fails, because Kelo was deeply unpopular all around the political spectrum. For instance, I’m not aware of anyone on this message board, no matter what their outlook, who was in favor of it.

[villa]

@MikeB4

Sandra Day O’Connor was the only liberal to vote in favor of the property owners. She was joined in her dissent by Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and William Rehnquist, three conservatives.

Wow. How far has the pendulum swung that Sandra Day O’Connor is described as a liberal on the court?

[JoelUpchurch]

The Kelo decision was the first thing that came to mind to me also, but I’m not sure if it would described as recent, but if Wolf Blitzer asked me the question I would have still gone with it.

Most people don’t care if the police dot the i’s and cross the t’s on a search warrant, but Kelo was a kick in the gut for every home owner.

[villa]

Kelo was also unpopular with the left - it was a very successful way of uniting the left and right. The idea that a poor person’s property can be snatched away and given to the wealthy corporations is hardly a lefty concept.

Sounds more like a Bush era tax cut to me, in fact.

[villa]

@Bricker

I disagreed with the result of Kyllo v. US – that is, I feel that police should be able to use an infrared scanner to look at your house without a warrant; your infrared rays are, like visible light, something you radiate to the outside world with no expectation of privacy.

I’m not sure this holds up as a distinction. While the infrared rays are radiated to the outside world like visible light, a person stood in front of a window knows that those outside can not only pick up, but also decode those rays of light and decode them into images. Hence there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. On the other hand, a person may know they are issuing infrared, but they also know that absent special equipment, that cannot be decoded into information. When that special equipment is of limited distribution, it is reasonable for the person to think their infrared is private.