![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Supreme Court Meme
Oct. 2nd, 2008 11:46 amThere's a meme going around, asking people to post a ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Several people on my flist have participated, so I thought I'd throw my two cents worth in. Since I like to make sure I get the names right and provide links, I did my research; btw, my research involved looking for details of SCOTUS decisions I already knew about.
My first example is a SCOTUS decision I agree with:.Miranda v. Arizona (consolidated with Westover v. United States, Vignera v. New York, and California v. Stewart), 384 U.S. 436.
This is the case that determined that people accused of a crime have very specific rights of which they should be informed. You've probably seen at least one cop show in which someone is read their rights: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense." There's more about this on Landmark Supreme Court Cases.
I also offer an example of a SCOTUS decision I disagree with: Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005).
I share the concerns of many that this decision harms the rights of property owners in violation of the fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that private property should not "be taken for public use, without just compensation."
There's a lot of information about SCOTUS decisions online. Maybe Palin should have taken a short study course on Landmark Supreme Court Cases, or one of the many other educational sites on the subject.
My first example is a SCOTUS decision I agree with:.Miranda v. Arizona (consolidated with Westover v. United States, Vignera v. New York, and California v. Stewart), 384 U.S. 436.
This is the case that determined that people accused of a crime have very specific rights of which they should be informed. You've probably seen at least one cop show in which someone is read their rights: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense." There's more about this on Landmark Supreme Court Cases.
I also offer an example of a SCOTUS decision I disagree with: Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005).
I share the concerns of many that this decision harms the rights of property owners in violation of the fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that private property should not "be taken for public use, without just compensation."
There's a lot of information about SCOTUS decisions online. Maybe Palin should have taken a short study course on Landmark Supreme Court Cases, or one of the many other educational sites on the subject.
