8 Landmark SC Cases

1) Weeks v. U.S. (1914) - Weeks was subject to a warrant less search and seizure in which the police discovered contraband (lottery tickets) in his mail. He was arrested for the illegal transport of gambling items and so he appealed to the Supreme Court. The court ruled in his favor, stating, “...if letters and private documents can thus be seized and used as evidence...his right to be secure against such searches... is of no value, and...Might as well be stricken from the Constitution." This was the first use of the exclusionary rule, thus creating a major precedent in our justice system.

2) Schenck v. U.S. (1919) - Charles Schenck mailed leaflets to draftees and soldiers urging them to resist the draft. This was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 and therefore Schenck was arrested. He took his case to the Supreme Court, where they upheld his conviction. They ruled that his arrest and the Espionage Act were not violations of the First Amendment, because his leaflets showed a “clear and present danger.” This case is significant for two reasons: 1) It created the “clear and present danger” rule. 2) It demonstrates how during wartime, free speech rights were and can be curtailed.
3) Gitlow v. New York (1925) - Benjamin Gitlow, a prominent Socialist, violated the New York Criminal Anarchy Law of 1902 by publishing manifestos advocating overthrowing the government through mass strikes and installing a Socialist system. Gitlow was tried and convicted, so he appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming his First Amendment rights had been violated. Unlike in the Schenck case, the court ruled in favor of Gitlow, deciding that "for present purposes, we may assume that freedom of speech and of press...are among the fundamental personal rights and liberties protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the State." This case is important, because it differentiates what is considered “clear and present danger” and what is not. The court decided that advocating overthrowing the government did not fit under the rule. Specific plans and people must be mentioned to make such speech criminal.
4) Mapp v. Ohio (1961) - Dolly Mapp’s house was searched and the police found “obscene” material (at the time possession of such was illegal). She was tried and convicted, then appealed to the Supreme Court. The court ruled in favor because the police failed to produce a search warrant. They incorporated the Fourth Amendment into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and executed the exclusionary rule. The case is significant for making the exclusionary rule and even greater standard, than any other Supreme Court case had before.
5) Fay v. Noia (1963) - Noia was convicted of murder in New York and his confession was used as evidence during the trial. He then filed a writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court, but the law stated, “A person must exhaust all state courts before appealing to a federal court.” The state of New York confessed that Noia’s confession had been coerced because an appeal would be inadmissible. The court ruled in favor of Noia, maintaining that the government must protect citizens’ right to habeas corpus.
6) Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) - Clarence E. Gideon was arrested for an attempted break in. He was illiterate and poor; therefore he could not afford an attorney of his choosing. At the time, council was only reserved for those facing capital punishment. The trial judge ruled that Gideon could defend himself. He was then tried and convicted. When he appealed to the Supreme Court, they ruled in his favor, declaring that all defendants in felony cases had the right to an attorney. This case strengthened the right to council, a cherished right to this day.
7) Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966) - Dr. Sam Sheppard’s arrest and trial for the murder of his wife received considerable media coverage. Sheppard argued that the media’s biased coverage was so extensive that it resulted in an unfair trial. The Supreme Court agreed with him and overturned his conviction, claiming “the judge failed to minimize the prejudicial impact of massive publicity." The case created the precedent for the use of the “gag” order to limit pretrial publicity.
8) Texas v. Johnson (1989) - Johnson burned an American flag outside the Republican National Convention. This violated a Texas law stating that desecration of the flag was a crime. Johnson was convicted and sentenced to one year in prison and a two thousand dollar fine. The Supreme Court overturned this conviction, claiming that flag burning was protected by the First Amendment. The case helped secure symbolic speech as a protected First Amendment right.

Sotomayor/Obama Rant

We shouldn't elect somebody based on their biography. Would you want your surgeon to be somebody who was hired based on their biography or their ability? Sotomayor is playing the Latina card. And Obama, who was also elected based on his biography, loves to use it.

*Portions of this rant come courtesy of Jack O'Brien.

Obama's SC Nominee

Today, Obama announced that he has nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court Justice to fill in sitting Justice David Souter's shoes. I don't know much about her, so I'll have to do some investigating. Hopefully, she is a Thurgood Marshall or a Bill Brennan, probably not though. Well, we'll see if the Senate approves of her.

Schenck v. US (1919)

1)Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) Decided by the White Court

2)Historical Background: Before we get into the specifics of the case, we must
understand the background history and culture of the time period in which it took place. At the time, the United States was involved in World War I and many American dissenters actively protested this involvement. In order to weaken or even abolish this anti-war movement, Congress passed various laws threatening free speech (often during wartime free speech rights are vulnerable to restraint). These laws included the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, which “prohibited saying or publishing anything disrespectful to the government of the United States.” Socialists, Communists, and Anarchists took the brunt of these laws. For example, Eugene V. Debs, leader of the Socialist Party, was sentenced to ten years in prison for saying ‘“master classes” caused the war, the “subject classes” would have to fight it.”

Facts: The defendant, Charles Schenck was the general secretary of the Socialist Party. He violated the Espionage Act of 1917 by mailing 15,000 leaflets insisting draftees and soldiers to resist the draft. He was arrested for this act of anti-war protest, being charged with “causing and attempting to cause insubordination in the military and naval forces of the United States” as well as disrupting the draft. Next, he was tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison. So, he went to the last resort, the Supreme Court. The government would argue that Schenck is guilty for breaking the law, but Schenck’s argument was that his and his entire party’s First Amendment rights were stripped away and that the war was an immoral war being fought by the working class, but for the upper class.
3)Issue: Were Schenck’s statements in the leaflets protected by the First Amendment? According to the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech” if this is true then was the Espionage Act and similar laws unconstitutional? Should Schenck stay behind bars?

4) Decision: The Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, upheld Schenck’s conviction. Were Schenck’s statements protected as political speech? No. Was the Espionage Act and similar laws unconstitutional? No. Should Schenck stay behind bars? Yes. All in the eyes of the Supreme Court!

5) Reason: According to the Supreme Court, Schenck’s statements put people in danger. This case created the famous, “clear and present danger” rule. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” So, was the Espionage Act constitutional? The Supreme Court argued that the law was reasonable in wartime and that such “political speech” was not protected, especially if it caused harm to others.

My opinion: I wholeheartedly disagree with every decision the Supreme Court made in this case and I feel we have come incredibly far (in terms of free speech rights), even in our modern, Patriot Act driven times. If the Supreme Court were faced with this case today they would absolutely overrule Schenck’s conviction. At least I hope so! Following this case, various Supreme Court decisions ruled in favor of similar incendiary speech, contradicting this decision. Firstly, the leaflets did not contain any statements making threats to draftees or soldiers if they did not conform to Schenck’s pleas. He merely urged men to resist the draft. Secondly, I think the Espionage Act was a “clear and present danger” in itself! The law was unconstitutional because it severed Americans’ right to free speech and specifically persecuted dissident voices, like the Socialist Party. Finally, I think all charges against Schenck and any other First Wave of the Red Scare victims should have been dropped, if they were clearly unconstitutional, as in this case. This event in our history is highly significant because it demonstrates how easily our civil liberties can be removed; a theme unfortunately not foreign to us in modern times.

I used http://www.oyez.org/cases and http:/www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases and my conscience.

Justice Thomas Lays It Down

LEXINGTON, Va. – Americans today are self-indulgent and don't make the sacrifices that their parents and grandparents did, and the nation's leaders don't ask people to act for the higher good, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said Monday at a Virginia college in a rare public speech.

"Our country and our principles are more important than our individual wants," Thomas told close to 400 people who greeted him with a standing ovation at Washington and Lee University, a Shenandoah Valley liberal arts school.

He quoted President Kennedy's famous, "Ask not what your country can do for you" speech, but said Americans today are more likely to say, "Ask not what you can do for yourselves or your country but what your country can do for you." - Yahoo! News

I second Thomas here.

Bill on Flag Burning

For the AP Government students out there. Yet, another Supreme Court case referenced in Hicks' Comedy. He is, of course, referring to Johnson v. Texas. Enjoy!

The Casue of Sexual Thoughts

For all you AP Government kids out there, when I was reading up on Miller V. California (1973) and the Supreme Court's position, it reminded me of this classic Bill Hicks bit. Enjoy!

SC Justice Ginsberg Hospitalized

WASHINGTON (AP) - Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had surgery Thursday after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, the court said.

Ginsburg, 75, had the surgery at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. She will remain in the hospital for seven to 10 days, said her surgeon, Dr. Murray Brennan, according to a release issued by the court.

The court announcement said the cancer is apparently in the early stages.

In 1999, Ginsburg had surgery for colon cancer and had chemotherapy and radiation treatment. The only woman on the court, she has been a justice since 1993.

The pancreatic cancer was discovered during a routine, annual exam late last month at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md.

Prayers for a smooth recovery.