A US Politics Meme

[annwfyn]

Stolen from cairmen

As evidenced by Katie Couric, Sarah Palin is unable to name any Supreme Court Case other than Roe v. Wade.

The Rules: Post info about ONE Supreme Court decision, modern or historic to your lj. (Any decision, as long as it's not Roe v. Wade.) For those who see this on your f-list, take the meme to your OWN lj to spread the fun.

Go forth, and edumacate!

The case that comes to mind first is Miranda vs Arizona. Off the top of my head I don't know too many details, but I know that it featured an Ernest, or Ernesto Miranda, who was arrested in Arizona, for some fairly icky crime - I think rape?

The police grabbed him, hauled him off to jail and browbeat a confession out of him which was later used to convict him. This conviction was eventually overturning by the US Supreme Court because he had not been made sufficiently aware of his right to silence, or his right to an attorney, thus denying him of his constitutional fifth amendment right to not incriminate himself.

It is this case which gives the common name to the well known warning - "you have the right to remain silent, you have the right to an attorney, anything you say can and will be used against you a court of law" - a 'Miranda warning'.

Everyone knew that one already, right? Hugh came up with a much better and more obscure copyright case.

Comments

[adze.livejournal.com]

Oh, that's where it comes from. I didn't know that...

I don't know any Supreme Court rulings, to be honest, but then I'm not in the running for the second most important job in the USA...

[melsner.livejournal.com]

Sally's totally wrong. Miranda is all about the right to wear fruit on your head.

I have no doubt that you have more foreign policy experience than Palin, though.

The idea of that woman as VP scares the hell out me.

I'd totally do her, though.

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

I did A level politics. Half the course was American Politics and I did my A level Politics coursework on the US Supreme Court.

I'm not brilliant now, but a load has been coming back to me since I saw this meme.

[silver-blue.livejournal.com]

I'm curious on a couple of things really. Given this was filmed by CBS News, there's as yet no actually available footage (only a spoof edited version and "reports of" the supposed gaffe).

I always find this kind of pop quiz and the fascination with "gaffes" in relation to such quizzes to be pretty false. Tag Obama in the middle of an hour long interview and say "name more Supreme Court cases" and I bet he'd be stumbling. Particularly if you take an interview where there'd be a reasonable expectation of a strong examination on a particular case - i.e. Roe vs Wade - and would therefore have been heavily briefed and prepared on that.

Same kind of thing about the fuss about McCain being unable to name the PM of Spain (a country not one of the bigger US trading partners or a major link-up in any other way) off the top of his head last week. It's largely irrelevant to any long term dealings with Spain were he President, where clearly he'd be briefed on all the relevant information.

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

I tend to think that naming more than one Supreme Court Case shouldn't be that tricksy.

When I saw this meme, four floated through my brain immediately, without having to think about it - Loving vs Virginia, Roe vs Wade, Miranda vs Arizona, Brown vs Topeka - and since I've been thinking about it loads more have come up.

Having said all that, I didn't really post this as a Palin dig (which is unusual for me, I will admit). I posted it because I think the US Supreme Court is a fantastic and wonderful institution which I find really fascinating and am always ready to write about it at the drop of a hat.

I kinda wish we had something like this over here. But then, I have a weird fondness for any system which puts at least some non-elected positions in power, for an assortment of peculiar reasons. I always loved the fact we had the House of Lords (before Labour's neutering of it) for some strange and similar reasons.

I'm also a fan of judicial activism, which I know you're not at all.

[silver-blue.livejournal.com]

Oddly, I couldn't think of any initially, and not like I don't follow politics/law. :) Thought of a bunch now mind you.

I share your thoughts on the House of Lords. I think an independent body that can act as an oversight, source of expertise and suggestion to the legislature is worthwhile. Up to and including the ability to delay (but not stop) legislation if they feel it needs to be revisited.

But while unelected, the Lords are part of the legislature, and activism, policy making and...well...legislating are part of their job description. The judiciary is there to implement the law, not make it, and I think that judicial activism blurs that line badly and dangerously.

[elethiomel.livejournal.com]

I tend to think that naming more than one Supreme Court Case shouldn't be that tricksy.

Alright then, assuming you are at least as educated about your own country as Palin is about hers, name four famous House of Lords decisions off the top of your head?

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

They blocked the ID cards measure twice, causing Tony Blair some embarassment.

They voted to repeal the Corn Laws, persuaded by the Duke of Wellington, thus marking the end of the most successful campaign of popular political activism in the 19th century.

They found Ann Boleyn guilty of treason and condemned her to death, with her ex-fiance, who was the Earl of Northumberland, one of the peers involved and (I think) fainted after giving the verdict (tho I may be adding scenes in my head).

*pauses for a moment, wracking brain*

OK...three off the top of my head, and I've got a load of other 'famous things parliament did in the 19th century and before, when most of the more influential politicians sat in the House of Lords', but that sort of feels wrong and not House of Lords specific.

Oh! I know another random thing the House of Lords did. In the 1930s they presided over the last trial of a peer to be brought before them - can't remember the name of the peer, but he was charged with some kind of motoring offense. I think that's a cheat tho as it's not exactly important, it just stuck in my head.

I think I'd quite like to mention that there are various court cases which I think are probably more along the lines of what you're thinking about - the Beck case (I think) which established the Court of Appeal - or the court case that made abortion legal for the sake of the mental health of the woman, which was the Bourne case. Those are court cases which did similar things to the cases I was citing on the Supreme Court.

Can I randomly name drop the Youssupuff (sp) case to, which is the reason for the disclaimer on all films that all characters are purely fictional and any resemblence to any person living or dead is purely coincidental. That was a British court case to, tho I don't know how far it went. And twas quite interesting, coz it featured a Russian aristocrat admitting in court that he did, in fact, shiv up Rasputin, so his wife was entitled to sue a film company for libel, as she could, indeed, argue that she might be mistaken for a lead character in the film. As she was married to the man who had shivved him up. Apparently the film weren't expecting the Russians to admit to having murdered someone and ended up losing that case. I think.

OK. How much of that did I misremember?

And how many points do I get? All of those are from memory only.

[elethiomel.livejournal.com]

Okay, I'm quietly impressed, although I'm not willing to accept the repeal of the Corn Laws as that was a legislative rather than a judicial decision.

Nevertheless it does illustrate the point I was hoping to make - for the very most part you're remembering what the court did and how that affected society rather than citing specific cases.

I'd hazard that, while Palin may not necessarily be able to cite lots of Supreme Court decisions, she could almost certainly talk about their effects (IE she could say "the Supreme Court decided that racial segregation of schools is unconstitutional" but perhaps not "In Brown et al v Board of Education of Topeka et al [349 U.S. 294], the Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation of schools is unconstitutional"

My four Supreme Court decisions would be:

Ableman v Booth [1859] (federal rulings cannot be contradicted by state courts)
United States v Nixon [1974] (POTUS is not above the law)
Gregg v Georgia [1976] (death penalty considered consitutional again)
DC v Heller [2008] (right to bear arms does not require membership of a militia)

(And yes, I had to look up the proper names and years, too)

My House of Lords decisions would be:

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball (established detrimental reliance)
Donoghue v Stevenson (established concept of negligence)
Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation (established unreasonableness of an administrative decision)
R v Caldwell (definition of recklessness)

[silver-blue.livejournal.com]

Probably, if we're also going for that kind of comparison, noting that Joe Biden in his most recent interview got the date which FDR was president wrong, and the time at which the television was invented incorrect. :)

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

Yeah...I was getting tangled up in my head as I think of the House of Lords as primarily a legislative body, and I had LOADS of decisions made by them which fitted that criteria. Since then I've been going through cases in my brain which reached the House of Lords, and found quite a few more. However, as I've been pondering this since last night I accept that these were not things I'd have remembered in a television interview.

The other thing that is making me pondersome is the very different way I seem to remember British legal history and American legal history. You're entirely right - I remember British legal history in terms of what happened and the effects of it. I start off remembering something like 'OK - there was that bloke - in the nineteenth century - kept being mistaken for someone else and arrested. His case established the court of appeal. What was his name? Argh - not Bourne - that was the abortion case - it began with a B - BECK!'

With US Supreme Court decisions I seem to have this list of case names in my head, which in some cases are actually disconnected from what they did. I knew that Plessy v Ferguson and Dred Scott v Louisiana were important cases, but I couldn't remember for the life of me why.*

The above is, of course, a total tangent and is mostly me being perplexed at why my brain works this way. Obviously, not everyone's does, or should. Your point re: remembering what something does, rather than it's name is a good one.

*Plessy v Ferguson established that 'separate but equal' was OK and paved the way for decades of segregation in the deep south. Dred Scott v Sandford was one of the causes of the American civil war, and established that a slave could not be freed just by being taken to a free state. The latter I vaguely had confused in my brain with the Armistad case, as 'Dred Scott' sounded a bit like a ship.

[melsner.livejournal.com]

Was the Stokes Monkey Trial a Supreme Court Case? Inherit the WInd?

[lawrencegillies.livejournal.com]

Was it Stokes or Stopes?

[melsner.livejournal.com]

Not sure, you might be right.

[ginasketch.livejournal.com]

The one where someone tried to Ban a book called "Fanny Hill" always makes me giggle.

[ginasketch.livejournal.com]

YES I AM 12

[pmp.livejournal.com]

Out of interest, what's the equivilent UK law that covers our rights when we're arrested?

[ginasketch.livejournal.com]

It's just called the Right To Silence

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

The right of privilege against self incrimination or something complicated like that. It's less snappy.

I think it might go back to Magna Carta but I'm not sure.

[elethiomel.livejournal.com]

The 'privilege against self incrimination' is right.

And it was only formally codified in the Judges Rules of 1912 - it doesn't go anywhere nearly as far as the Magna Carta (a time when testimony could still quite cheerfully be compelled under torture, remember).

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

You're totally right. I wasn't very sure about the dating as well. I think I just remembered the phrasing of the right itself, which struck me as quite grand and kinda cool.