In Freedom for the Thought We Hate, Anthony Lewis makes the point that free speech is not always popular. In fact, Lewis writes, "Some of the greatest judicial opinions have run against popular opinion—as did those of [Justice] Holmes and Brandeis when they dissented from the punishment of radical speech" (p. 180). For this final blog post, briefly describe and explain one Supreme Court case that has been at odds with popular opinion. Note: To assist you in this task, refer to the "Table of Cases" in the Lewis book, pp. 193-195.
Write about 200-250 words (about 13-15 sentences). As noted above, your task is to (1) describe the most important facts of the case you select and (2) explain how and why the decision in this case was unpopular.
This assignment is due by midnight on Tuesday, November 27. We will discuss these cases in our class on Wednesday at 2 p.m. See you then.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Zak Patterson
The 1979 case of Ganett Co. v. DePasquale ruled against a public trial, in the hopes of preventing the preexisting prejudices of juries. The press was outraged at the decision and said it went against the rights of the Constitution. The chariman of the American Newspaper Publishers Association even said that this decision showed that the court "was determined to unmake the Constitution" (176). The decision was reversed a year later, but it remains an interesting point of debate. To me, any press that a criminal gets before his or her trial is going to be bad press. Even if the press does not make their opinion known about the criminal in question, just the mere reading of what the criminal did leaves a bad taste in one's mouth. That is what the Supreme Court was trying to avoid, but it went against the Consitution. Trials must be public, not shut off from public view. The reason why this case is particularly important for free expression is that it made clear the tension that can exist between free expression and other interests, like the sanctity of a jury. The case was so unpopular with the press because it put the sanctity of a jury at a higher importance than the Constitutional amendment protecting freedom of the press.
Maggie Tracy
I couldn’t decide on just one case to talk about, I didn’t feel like I had enough information for some. When I looked up Roe v. Wade I found it on a page that also included the Dred Scott case and the legal tender cases of 1869 – all three cases that Lewis quotes as “…three Supreme Court decisions that had profoundly damaging consequences for the country” (Lewis 180). All three cases ruled on an issue that the general population either can’t agree on, Roe v Wade, or can agree should be overruled as with Dred Scott and legal tender. These three cases were much further back in history, 1973, 1857, and 1869, respectively and so Lewis brings up a more recent case as in the 2003 overruling of a 1986 case dealing with homosexual actions. It’s interesting that three of these cases were originally ruled in favor of one group of people whether it be whites, the government, or homophobes and eventually overturned because they realized these laws didn’t really help anyone and the general public doesn’t agree. What’s even more interesting is that unlike the others, Roe v Wade, has not been overruled by the Supreme Court but much of the population wants it to be and fights every day for it.
Andrus Rodriguez
One Supreme Court case that was found to be unpopular involved the power a judge had to silence comments on legal matters when the case was being reviewed as in the 1941 case of Bridges v. California. Lewis explained that by the “use of contempt as a device to discourage reporting that might endanger the fairness of a future trial was effectively barred” (171). A California state judge ruled unfavorably on a union case that was led by a left-wing union leader named Harry Bridges. Harry didn’t like the ruling and sent a telegram criticizing the decision to the U.S. secretary of labor. He was then held in contempt for sending that telegram. During that time the Los Angeles Times wrote in their column that the judge had to be more or less careful not to make a “serious mistake” (153). They also found themselves in trouble and the judge held them in contempt because it was reporting news on a criminal case involving two teamsters. “The power of judges to punish outside comment on matters pending in their courts” was the reason why the case was so unpopular (154). It discouraged reporters to inform the happenings during a court proceeding and why was it so personally taken when the judges were criticized?
Rachael Wells
It seems as if we don't hear a lot about the Supreme Court anymore. Not that they don't exist but a monumental case hasn't been presented like those the court dealt with in the time of Roe v. Wade. However, when big cases were being dealt with, especially ones dealing with sensitive subjects, there are bound to be disagreements. One case I find most interesting is the Minnesota case. The candidates running for judicial offices were not allowed to state their opinions on controversial subjects, such as "I am against abortion," (Lewis 179). The Republican Party challenged the ruling as a violation of the first admendment and won. You can tell by his dialect that Lewis doesn't necessarily agree with the ruling calling it an "egregious misapplication of the first admendment," (Lewis 180). But he then goes on to note that some of the most controversial cases were won by a vote that differed from the popular opinion.
Michael Thomas
In the case of Korematsu v. United States (1944), Fred Korematsu, as well as 120,000 other Japanese descent Americans were forced into internment camps without due process and based solely on their race. This was inspired by the rising fear post Pearl Harbor and fueled by the politicians because, as Earl Warren said, “It is impossible to tell the difference between a loyal Japanese American and a disloyal one” (113). As with all orders such as this one, it becomes evident that constitutional rights are intentionally overlooked to achieve the intended result. What made this comparable with the McCarthyism communist fear and the Salem witch trials, is that this was not only based on the present fear that disloyal citizens may be anywhere, but it caused the ones in panic to target specifically those of Japanese descent. When Korematsu sued for the breach of his rights, the Supreme Court Upheld the charges against him only adding to this already horrible situation, but of the nine justices, 3 voted in Korematsu’s favor. One wrote about the issue and said that if they uphold the charge, it will not only make it explicit that racial discrimination is justifiable, but it will allow it to be a justification for any future politician with an agenda. For them to vote in favor of the charged person means that they went against not only the popular opinions that the Japanese Americans are bad but also their own fear that voting this way will cause them to lose favor with the other justices. Many things could have been a reason for them to just agree with the other six. But it took one right reason to vote for the man’s rights. While they were not successful in changing this man’s sentence, it definitely proves to be an exemplary model of what is right is not always popular.
Barrett Hunter
I chose the famous case of Brown v. Board of Education for my case study. Even though the Emancipation Proclamation was signed over half a century earlier, racism against African-Americans was still very much alive in America. Segregation between blacks and whites existed in almost every realm of society and this was most evident in the south. Even after they lost the Civil War, southerners were unwilling to accept equality between whites and blacks and when this case came to the Supreme Court it caused outrage among these Americans who still viewed minorities as inferior. The basis behind the case was the movement that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. In the constitution it states “every man is created equal.” It makes no discernment between black people or white people. Everyone is on equal grounds. Southerners or people who were against the civil right movement strongly opposed this movement because they knew that it would lead the way to end segregation as a whole. At the time you could find segregation anywhere from the public transportation system to simple water fountains. It was unthinkable to these close-minded Americans that black and white children could be educated at the same institution. Luckily the case was upheld and segregation in schools did come to an end. This can be looked at as one of the most monumental events of the Civil Rights Movement.
Post a Comment