Very cool! Brandeis was one of the smartest guys ever to sit on the bench.
So I take it the OP is suggesting that some time soon, it will be revealed that Governor Palin or Senator Biden couldn’t name two Supreme Court cases when asked?
Wow. If that’s true, I’ll be amazed.
I’ll be happy to more accurately phrase the poll when we learn the exact question Gov. Palin was allegedly asked, if we ever do.
But if the question does turn out to have been substantially similar to my OP, I’m sure you’ll be the first to appreciate the value of this little poll having been conducted in advance, before partisan talking points about the unfairness or difficulty of the question settled in.
Thank you for starting this thread. I’ve been going through the posts and looking up summaries and histories on some of these cases I couldn’t remember.
It’s tough when high school was 30 years ago and these things don’t come up in day-to-day conversations!
However, the trivia of knowing the case name isn’t directly related to knowledge of the issue. I personally think of a supreme court case as being merely the logistical rubber stamp on all of the important events that transpired beforehand. I care that I use an optical mouse every day, but could care less about the patent number or holder that resides in a file in the patent office.
I honestly failed the OP’s quiz, Roe v Wade was the only one I knew the name of. However, I know a metric crapload of civics issues without being able to cite court records or state/federal statutes by number, or following case by case transpirings.
Kramer v Kramer
Hagler v Hearns
Finders v Keepers
Simpson v Brown
shrug What’s in a name?
Just rumors so far. Howard Kurtz mentioned in the Washington Post a day or so ago that CBS has more two more Palin responses it’s about to release that will “likely prove embarassing;” Johnathan Martin who runs the blog “The Politico” claims that a Palin aide told him that the footage shows Palin unable to discuss any U.S. Supreme Court case other than Roe and sitting silent when asked.
Without looking at other answers,
Roe vs. Wade
Plessy vs. Ferguson
Brown vs. School Board of Topeka ??
Scopes monkey trial…?
Anna Nicole Simpson’s contestation of the will
no one can calculate 33% faster than attorneys
A few things mentioned above:
Knowing the name is a proxy for having some knowledge of these important issues and it allows you to be conversant on the issue because we use names as shorthand.
But, as I mentioned above, I think being able to identify cases by their content is equally valid. If you can say, “that one case from the 50’s that desegregated schools,” that’s pretty good.
To me the most damning thing about not being able to name two cases is how central case names are to our discussion of political affairs. Does anyone doubt that you have to know what Roe refers to in order to be fluent in current U.S. political dialogue? I wouldn’t think so. And I would argue that the same is true of a handful of other cases. Dred Scott is a good example. You can’t understand George W. Bush’s answers about legal appointments if you don’t know what that case refers to.
Considering that Biden is a lawyer and has been on the Senate Judiciary Committee for most of my life, I’d be REALLY amazed if he couldn’t name two cases. As sad as it is to say, I wouldn’t be amazed to find out Palin couldn’t.
I agree, and you’ve described how the memory-catalog system of my brain works. I know e.g. that there were a couple of very famous lawyers in the Scopes trial, and can see the faces of the actors that played them in the classic movie, but damned if I can ever remember their names.
skipped to last page without reading responses
Roe v. Wade
Terry v. Ohio
Roe v. Wade and Brown vs. The School Board of …Topeka Kansas(?).
going back to read the thread now
Absolutely.
Although I believe I would react the same, regardless, as this is a subject near and dear to my heart.
Now, if the question is, “Name two Supreme Court cases you feel were wrongly decided…” or something like that, obviously it’s quite a different story, and I wouldn’t fault her (or anyone not in the profession in some way) to not have an opinion.
Oooo! Ooo! I want to play!
Marbury v Madison
Dredd Scott
Brown v Board of Education
Plessy v Ferguson
Miranda
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.
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.
Roe vs Wade
Bush vs Gore
There’s probably 20 others that I’d recognize, and 20 more still that I might not recognize the name but would be familiar with the case in some manner, but being put on the spot tends to freeze my ability to recall rather than foster it.
I can’t find one that’s not on a biased site, though.
Is “disagrees with” the same as “wrongly decided”? I think Roe v Wade is shitty, shitty constitutional law and logic, but I agree with it wholeheartedly!
“Wrongly decided” to me means that there’s lawyerey stuff involved, perhaps precidents or legal reasoning, which wasn’t properly followed. I wouldn’t expect a non-lawyer to know that sort of thing. I only have a very limited understanding of why Roe v Wade is so “wrongly decided”, and I couldn’t begin to discuss a second case in a similar way.
“Disagrees with” just means you don’t like what the case upholds or doesn’t uphold. A case could be very well decided, in line with all written laws and precedents, and you could still not like it or agree with it - like Dred Scott v Sanford.