It was reported yesterday that the as of now un-aired and even sadder portion of Sarah Palin's Katie Couric interview has to do with her inability to name a Supreme Court decision besides Roe v. Wade. And while there are plenty of things that scare the crap out of me at the thought of her assuming the presidency, this (to me the law student) is by far the most appalling. Sure, most Americans have a hard time naming the justices. I'll give Sarah the benefit of the doubt and hope she can at least do that. But only being able to name one case!? Come on. Below are 10 cases Sarah Palin couldn't come up with that play an important role in our society today. If you haven't heard of them either (it's ok, you aren't a heartbeat away from the presidency), tell friends in conversation that you know more about the Supreme Court than the Republican vice presidential nominee.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): The right to have a lawyer if you can't afford one.
Clarence Gideon, a man in Florida, was charged with breaking into a pool hall and taking money from vending machines there. In Florida, this was considered a felony. At his hearing, Gideon asked that the court appoint a lawyer to represent him since he could not afford one. The court denied him this, noting a Florida law which allowed counsel only in capital-offense cases. Gideon went to trial and did the best he could, defending himself, but was found guilty and sentenced to five years in jail. He appealed to the Supreme Court, stating his right to counsel under the Fourteenth Amendment had been violated. The Court incorporated the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel and reversed his conviction, allowing him to be retried, this time with the help of counsel. Gideon went back to trial and this time he was found innocent of the charges.
Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857): The "Dred Scott decision" ruled that slaves were considered property and had to be returned to their owners; led to the Civil War.
Dred Scott, a slave owned by a Dr. Emerson, was taken from Missouri to a free state and then back to Missouri again. Scott sued, claiming that his residence in a free territory granted him freedom. In a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court decided that Congress did not have the power to prohibit slavery in the territories, making the already repealed Missouri Compromise of1820 unconstitutional. Furthermore, the Court went on to state that blacks were not citizens of the United States and could not become citizens and therefore they could not sue in a court.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896): Established the "seperate but equal" doctrine.
A Louisiana state law required separate accommodations on railroads for white passengers and black ones. A black citizen, Plessy, was jailed for refusing to leave a car that was reserved for white passengers. He appealed to the Supreme Court on the basis that the principle of "equal but separate" violated his rights under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court, in a 7-1 vote, upheld the "separate but equal" doctrine which lasted until they reversed it in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Justice Harlan's stated in his famous dissent in the 1896 case that: "The Constitution is color-blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens." The Warren Court of the 1954 case echoed his sentiments.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966): Established "Miranda Rights" read to each and every person once they are arrested.
Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home in Arizona and taken to the local police station, where he was questioned for two hours before confessing to crimes of rape and kidnapping. In a decision of 5-4, the Court held that an individual held for questioning must be clearly informed of their rights to talk with counsel and have a lawyer present during their interrogation. If a lawyer cannot be afforded then the court must appoint one for the defendant. Furthermore, information obtained from someone who has not been informed of his or her rights cannot be used against them. Nowadays, when someone is arrested, they are read their rights which go something like this: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you. You have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand each and every one of these rights as they have been presented to you?"
Regents of the University of California at Davis v. Bakke (1978): Upheld the practice known as "Afirmative Action."
Allan Bakke, a Vietnam veteran, wanted to become a doctor. However, he had been turned down by eleven medical schools. He then learned that the University of California at Davis, a local medical school, had accepted minority students who were less qualified academically. In suing them on grounds of reverse discrimination, it was brought to light that the University, as part of their affirmative action program, held sixteen places each year for "disadvantaged students." The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, upheld the constitutionality of affirmative action. However, it also ruled that Bakke must be accepted to U.C. at Davis Medical School because they used race as the sole reason for reserving sixteen places for minority students. The University could consider race in admitting students. So, while upholding the policy of affirmative action, the Court decided that a system of strict quotas based on race was in violation of the Civil Rights Act of1964 and thus unconstitutional.
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965): Established the principle of marital privacy.
A physician had been arrested for giving information about contraception to a married couple because Connecticut law prohibited the use of "any drug, medicinal article, or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception." The Court overturned the Connecticut law stating that it infringed upon people's right to privacy. This decision raised more questions concerning the unenumerated rights mentioned in the Ninth Amendment.
Schenck v. United States (1919): Defined the limits of free speech.
During World War I, when the United States was at war with Germany, Congress passed the Espionage Act, outlawing any attempt to foster insubordination or obstruct the draft. Charles Schenck, general secretary of the Socialist Party, was arrested for conspiring to print and circulate leaflets that would obstruct and hinder the enlistment service of the United States. Schenck argued that the Espionage Act violated his rights to freedom of speech and press. The Supreme Court held that in a time of war, extraordinary conditions may take effect where Congress has the right to forbid printed materials or speech aimed at hindering the war effort. The test for "a clear and present danger" was formulated to deal with questions regarding freedom of speech.
United States v. Nixon (1974): Limited "executive priviledge."
During the trial of those who had been accused of the 1972 break-in at the Watergate Complex, the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, it was discovered that President Nixon had been taping conversations in the Oval Office. A subpoena was issued for these tapes but the President refused to turn them over on grounds of "executive privilege." The Supreme Court heard the case. Nixon's lawyer argued that the issue at stake was the philosophy of separation of powers while the prosecutor argued that if the President is wrong in how he reads the Constitution, who is going to tell him? The Court unanimously decided against the President stating that even he had to stand trial in some circumstances. An ironic note to this case is that the Chief Justice Burger, who delivered the Court's decision, was Nixon's personal choice for Chief Justice.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006): Rules that Bush's handling of detainee trials were in violation of several crucial standards.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954): The most famous case in histoy besides Roe v. Wade; overturned "seperate but equal" established in Plessy v. Ferguson.
An African-American girl, Linda Carol Brown, was not allowed to attend a school four blocks from her house because it was for white students. Instead, she had to walk twenty-one blocks to the nearest all-black school. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision saying that separate but equal is inherently unequal. In a follow up case one year later, the Court stated that local school systems should develop their own plans for desegregation to take effect "with all deliberate speed."
There you have it. 10 landmark cases you didn't have to know that Sarah Palin should have known.