# Is there anyone on this board who cannot name two Supreme Court cases? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [September 29, 2008, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-on-this-board-who-cannot-name-two-supreme-court-cases/465770 "2008-09-29T22:55:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![FaerieBeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e95f7d/32.png) [@FaerieBeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FaerieBeth)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2008, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-on-this-board-who-cannot-name-two-supreme-court-cases/465770/121 "2008-09-30T22:55:27Z")
Without looking at the responses or anything else, for that matter Roe v. Wade Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas Those two leaped immediately to mind. FaerieBeth (female teacher) ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2008, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-on-this-board-who-cannot-name-two-supreme-court-cases/465770/122 "2008-10-01T03:46:58Z")
> [@Spoons](#): > > From the Supreme Court of Canada: I was hoping this would come up! Permit me to add _Egan v. Canada, M. v. H., Little Sisters v. Canada,_ and _Reference re. Same-Sex Marriage_. ---
**Author:** ![5\_time\_champ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/5/278dde/32.png) [@5\_time\_champ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/5_time_champ)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2008, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-on-this-board-who-cannot-name-two-supreme-court-cases/465770/123 "2008-10-01T03:47:32Z")
Presault v Vermont, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the Federal Rails to Trails Act. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2008, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-on-this-board-who-cannot-name-two-supreme-court-cases/465770/124 "2008-10-01T03:48:53Z")
Oh and, for heaven’s sake, _Morgentaler v. The Queen_. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2008, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-on-this-board-who-cannot-name-two-supreme-court-cases/465770/125 "2008-10-01T03:57:12Z")
If you’re wondering: _M. v. H._: same-sex couples can become common-law spouses the same as opposite-sex ones. _Egan v. Canada_: S. 15 of the Charter includes sexual orientation as a prohibited grounds of discrimination. _Little Sisters v. Canada_: obscenity customs laws violate freedom of expression but are saved under S. 1 of the Charter. _Reference re. Same-Sex Marriage:_ the federal government may recognize same-sex marriage as marriage. Okay, kind of specialized, but come on, _Egan_’s pretty much the basis of all subsequent jurisprudence on the question. Then there’s _Vriend v. Alberta_, that provincial human rights acts must include sexual orientation as prohibited grounds, and more broadly that a law can be unconstitutionally discriminatory by what it omits as well as by what it includes. _R. v. Morgentaler_: abortion is legal. (_Morgentaler v. The Queen_ is actually a different case from 12 years earlier with the opposite result, being before the introduction of the Charter. Yes, it’s the same Morgentaler; he recently received the Order of Canada.) ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2008, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-on-this-board-who-cannot-name-two-supreme-court-cases/465770/126 "2008-10-01T03:57:23Z")
Roe v. Wade District of Columbia v. Heller ---
**Author:** ![susan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/susan/32/17537_2.png) [@susan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/susan)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2008, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-on-this-board-who-cannot-name-two-supreme-court-cases/465770/127 "2008-10-01T03:59:17Z")
> [@](#): > > Can I be vice-president or do I have to shoot a moose first? _Dinsdale v. Moose_ ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2008, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-on-this-board-who-cannot-name-two-supreme-court-cases/465770/128 "2008-10-01T05:00:14Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > I was hoping this would come up! Permit me to add _Egan v. Canada, M. v. H., Little Sisters v. Canada,_ and _Reference re. Same-Sex Marriage_. Good calls, **Matt**. Yes, those are significant SCC cases too. Good to have them added. Aside to **Hypnagogic Jerk** : No, I’m not a lawyer–yet. I’ve finished law school and am working towards my bar admission, so I’m kind of in limbo–I know more than the average layperson, but not enough to be a lawyer. 🙂 Anyway, Constitutional Law was among my favourite courses at law school, so those cases are some of many that were of interest to me, and fairly fresh in my mind besides. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2008, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-on-this-board-who-cannot-name-two-supreme-court-cases/465770/129 "2008-10-01T06:29:16Z")
what, no love for _Reference re Chemicals_? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2008, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-on-this-board-who-cannot-name-two-supreme-court-cases/465770/130 "2008-10-01T12:04:19Z")
> [@Roland\_Orzabal](#): > > Haven’t read the thread, but: Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. If this were a Feud thread, I bet I’d have just racked up some serious points. > > I wanted to name Blockburger vs. Someone – the “lesser included offense” case that I remember from **Bricker** ’s epic (if one-sided) battle with **Beryl\_Mooncalf** – but I can’t remember the other party’s name. Heh heh heh… good times. And don’t fret – the other party was the United States, so it’s “Blockburger v. U.S.” Most casual references to it are simply “Blockburger,” so you’re good. And I can’t tell you how pleased I am that you remembered that!! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2008, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-on-this-board-who-cannot-name-two-supreme-court-cases/465770/131 "2008-10-01T12:18:55Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > Do I understand correctly that you do not believe a candidate for VP should be able to identify 2 SCt decisions he/she disagrees with? Tho I would expect them to recall names, I’d be satisfied with references like “that pledge of allegiance case from a couple of years ago” or “the recent affirmative action decision.” Hell, anyone could play safe by citing Plessy and Dred Scott! 😃 > > Or do you consider a major party VP candidate to “not [be] in the profession in some way”? > > While politicians need not be lawyers, being able to discuss S.Ct. decisions at some level is basic PolSci 100 stuff. I expect at least that much from all major party candidates for Pres/VP. I think there’s a difference between “name two cases” and “name two cases you disagree with.” I might pause for thought on the latter, and I would humbly aver that I know a few Supreme Court cases. The problem is – what does “disagree” mean? Is the questioner asking about cases where I dislike the result, but accept it was either compelled by law, or accept that a good-faith analysis of law could lead there? Or the opposite – I agree with the result as a matter of wise social policy, but disagree about the legal analytical process used? Or must both be present? What about older cases, where I may have cavilled at the time, but whose results are now so entrenched that changing them would upset so much decisional law that I accept them now? I think _Lawrence v. Texas_ was poorly decided, on bad rationale, but I agree with the result. I think _Lago Vista_ was correctly analyzed, but I don’t like the result. _Miranda_ was poorly decided and reached a poor result in its time, but has now generated such progeny in case law that it’s unassailable. And _Roe_, virtually standing alone, was poorly decided, reached a poor result, and can still be disposed of today without upsetting the precedential applecart. So the neutral question _Name two cases…_ is something that should pose no problems for any reasonable person. Name two cases you disagree with? That requires clarification, at least. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2008, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-on-this-board-who-cannot-name-two-supreme-court-cases/465770/132 "2008-10-01T13:21:58Z")
> [@susan](#): > > _Dinsdale v. Moose_ Or the noted British criminal case from the late Sixties, _R. ex. rel. Dinsdale v. Piranha_. ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2008, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-on-this-board-who-cannot-name-two-supreme-court-cases/465770/133 "2008-10-01T13:30:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Name two cases you disagree with? That requires clarification, at least. Sure, right from this thread. Bush v Gore Plessy v. Ferguson ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2008, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-on-this-board-who-cannot-name-two-supreme-court-cases/465770/134 "2008-10-01T13:42:20Z")
> [@Enderw24](#): > > Sure, right from this thread. > > Bush v Gore > Plessy v. Ferguson I would not have agreed with one of your two choices, and in any event, you don’t say how you reached this conclusion. Is it that you don’t like the results in both cases, but you agree the Court analyzed the law correctly? (In other words, what’s needed is a change in the law…) or is it that you feel the Court improperly analyzed the law? And if the latter, in either case, what specific errors of law did the Court commit? ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2008, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-on-this-board-who-cannot-name-two-supreme-court-cases/465770/135 "2008-10-01T13:43:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think there’s a difference between “name two cases” and “name two cases you disagree with.” I might pause for thought on the latter, and I would humbly aver that I know a few Supreme Court cases. > > The problem is – what does “disagree” mean? … > > … > > Name two cases you disagree with? That requires clarification, at least. Well, I think you and **WhyNot** are suggesting a level of sophistication that I feel is indeed rare in American political discussion. And of course, if the question is unclear, the politician could ask for clarification. But far more likely, I would expect most any candidate for office above dogcatcher to have little difficulty going into some spiel about how he/she disagrees with “the recent decisions showing a trend towards” any number of liberal or conservative issues. And such a response would not have caused anyone to raise an eyebrow. Hell, in my (appellate) experience it is nearly ALWAYS sufficient in court to simply refer to a legal precedent/principal, without needing to provide a specific name or citation. And at argument I can always simply say the citation is in my brief. _(Always cracks me up in TV shows where a lawyer just pipes up Smith v. Barney, as tho the name alone were sufficient to make his point. Of course, in all practice areas there are the baseline cases whose names serve as useful shorthand.)_ There would be no problem with a candidate saying they forget a case’s name, but providing general info to indicate that they are familiar with at least some basic aspects of the dispute. And in Palin’s case, she could always say, _“I’ll try to find some and get back to ya!”_😉 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2008, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-on-this-board-who-cannot-name-two-supreme-court-cases/465770/136 "2008-10-01T13:59:01Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > Hell, in my (appellate) experience it is nearly ALWAYS sufficient in court to simply refer to a legal precedent/principal, without needing to provide a specific name or citation. And at argument I can always simply say the citation is in my brief. _(Always cracks me up in TV shows where a lawyer just pipes up Smith v. Barney, as tho the name alone were sufficient to make his point. Of course, in all practice areas there are the baseline cases whose names serve as useful shorthand.)_ I try to give those guys the benefit of the doubt, and assume their obscure case names, _sans_ cite, are well-known in their jurisdictions. And as you say, there are some cases that are so well-known as to stand for certain propositions that they get tossed around as synonyms for the principle: Strickland, Batson, Blockburger, Edwards, Miranda, are all shoo-in references for their respective issues. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2008, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-on-this-board-who-cannot-name-two-supreme-court-cases/465770/137 "2008-10-01T14:11:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I try to give those guys the benefit of the doubt, and assume their obscure case names, _sans_ cite, are well-known in their jurisdictions. … Also love it when the atty just shouts out “Objection” without identiying any gorunds. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2008, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-on-this-board-who-cannot-name-two-supreme-court-cases/465770/138 "2008-10-01T14:14:25Z")
Ehr… the Roe-whatever one re. abortion and, uhm… uh… that’s it. The other US case I remember the name of is Miranda and IIRC that was California. OTOH, I can tell you several cases from the Spanish Constitucional! ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2008, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-on-this-board-who-cannot-name-two-supreme-court-cases/465770/139 "2008-10-01T14:24:07Z")
> [@susan](#): > > _Dinsdale v. Moose_ The moose bit my sister. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2008, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-on-this-board-who-cannot-name-two-supreme-court-cases/465770/140 "2008-10-01T14:30:41Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > The moose bit my sister. My 5’2" 100-pounds-soaking-wet sister is nicknamed Moose. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-on-this-board-who-cannot-name-two-supreme-court-cases/465770.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-on-this-board-who-cannot-name-two-supreme-court-cases/465770.md?page=8)