Heh. You can name famous Court of the Exchequer cases if you want. I’ll start us off: Rylands v. Fletcher.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
(Since the easy ones were all given already–not that these were hard)
Schneckloth v Bustamonte
Graytaste v Lesfilling
Still coming up duck eggs. Why would I have memorised this information?
I like you. I’m adding the word “savant” to your official job title.
Because some people believe knowing stupid facts (even stupid facts related to the Supreme Court are still stupid facts) shows how “cultured” you are or some crap.
Let’s face it. Roe v Wade and Brown v The Board of Education are the biggies (and the two I would have said), but even if you don’t know that everyone knows abortion is legal and segregation has been outlawed in schools.
Knowing the case name will only help on Jeopardy.
Plessy V Ferguson
Ex parte Milligan
(Accidentally looked at the first reply, so excluded those from my answers):
Brown v. Board
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Though I’m aware technically that the names are longer.
In the US, we learn this kind of thing all through our schooling. Additionally, the Supreme Court has been in the news quite a bit in the last 8 years (starting with putting our current President in power).
This is a thread in preparation for what’s coming down the news pike in the next few days about a certain VP candidate.
Stupid facts? Are you serious? Knowing that the right exists is not the same as knowing how and why you have that right. You cannot understand abortion in the U.S. without knowing at least a little bit about Roe. You cannot understand the politics of the last 8 years without knowing about the existence of Bush v. Gore.
And, as you demonstrate, virtually everyone is able to name at least two cases.
Dred Scott v Sandford
Bakke v Board of Regents, University of California
U.S. v Eichman
Texas v Johnson
U. S. v Leon
Roe v. Wade
Brown v. Board of Education
Don’t make me get all Bower v. Hardwick here.
Knowing some of these case names is trivia, knowing about some of the cases is pretty much an essential part of being a well informed citizen. In general most people should be able to at least give the basics behind:
Marbury v. Madison
Brown v. Board
Roe v. wade
I’d argue that if we were to hold ourselves to a slightly higher standard everyone needs to know:
Plessy v. Ferguson
Gideon v. Wainright
Dred Scott v. Sandford
Knowing about Marbury v. Madison is to know about how the SCOTUS functions as one of the three branches of government, John Marshall essentially forged the branch in large part out of that decision alone.
Brown v. Board is essential to understanding the Civil Rights movement and its apex, Roe v. Wade is essential to understanding the abortion issue in America.
Plessy v. Ferguson is important in understanding the Jim Crow era, and Gideon v. Wainright is important in understanding one of our key rights as Americans.
Is that an insult calling me stupid? Really? Are you in the 4th grade?
How is knowing the case name germane to everyday life? What does knowing the details of Bush v Gore get you? It’s trivia. A kind of trivia that is a bit more high falutin’ than Simpsons episode titles, but trivia all the same.
Umm, what? Where did you get that? I used your phrase, friend-o.
Germane to everyday life? Probably not, unless you’re a powerful politician. But trivia? No. It’s not trivia. If you care about habeas corpus, you need to know about Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. It isn’t the same as knowing the name of a TV episode. And it isn’t just elitist masturbation.
None at all.
I do recognise “Roe vs Wade” as an (or “the”) abortion bill, but had no clue about it being a Supreme Court case, coz I am a damn foreigner.
I didn’t know that one by name. I did know the right, but I like knowing the names as well.
I don’t know if I think it’s important to know the names, but I do think it’s important for people to know about major court cases in general or they don’t understand the underpinnings of our society and laws.
For example, I think everyone should know Roe, even if they don’t know it by name. They should know what Roe means no matter if they support it or not. If you don’t understand the existence of Roe, you don’t understand one of the major political wrestling matches when it comes to SC appointees.
And I would add that the ability to name two mammals is also trivia. But sometimes failures at trivia are not trivial.
I agree with this, although obviously you need to know some to be conversant about contemporary politics. Perhaps I should have phrased the OP as “identify two important Supreme Court cases.”
Ah, mammals. We have those here.