General Discussion

unionworks

(3,574 posts) Wed Apr 4, 2012, 03:44 AM Apr 2012

American History Buffs - A question

Can anyone tell me if there has been a single signifigant SCOTUS ruling or major legislation passed since 2000 that expanded/protects our civi liberties in any meaningful way? It seems to me we have been on a race to the bottom.

14 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

American History Buffs - A question (Original Post) unionworks Apr 2012 OP

No. The Midway Rebel Apr 2012 #1

thanks much unionworks Apr 2012 #2

This message was self-deleted by its author dmosh42 Apr 2012 #3

Your question has the same answer as this question: are you a 1%er? n/t dimbear Apr 2012 #4

Sure. JVS Apr 2012 #5

that's one! unionworks Apr 2012 #6

That one case where Scalia wrote the majority. Bucky Apr 2012 #7

Good one unionworks Apr 2012 #11

You mean 2-vote Scalia lame54 Apr 2012 #13

Actually I recall Thomas dissented from Scalia's ruling on that one. Bucky Apr 2012 #14

District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago hack89 Apr 2012 #8

UNITED STATES v. JONES hack89 Apr 2012 #9

both of those are good... unionworks Apr 2012 #12

court can't expand liberties but can protect them alc Apr 2012 #10

The Midway Rebel

(2,191 posts)

1. No.

Reply to unionworks (Original post)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 04:08 AM

Apr 2012

Nada. Bupkis. Zilch. Zero. Dickweed. SCOTUS pretty much says you have the right to fuck off and die.

Although as a grad student I am a bit beyond the buff stage of historian.

In fact there are some good books about the topic.

This one looks good. The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom

http://www.cato.org/store/books/dirty-dozen-how-twelve-supreme-court-cases-radically-expanded-government-eroded-freedom-paperb

unionworks

(3,574 posts)

2. thanks much

Reply to The Midway Rebel (Reply #1)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 04:30 AM

Apr 2012

I kinda had that ugly feeling....

Response to unionworks (Original post)

dmosh42 This message was self-deleted by its author.

dimbear

(6,271 posts)

4. Your question has the same answer as this question: are you a 1%er? n/t

Reply to unionworks (Original post)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 04:53 AM

Apr 2012

JVS

(61,935 posts)

5. Sure.

Reply to unionworks (Original post)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 05:12 AM

Apr 2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

unionworks

(3,574 posts)

6. that's one!

Reply to JVS (Reply #5)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 06:22 AM

Apr 2012

Better than nothing I guess. Any others anybody?

Bucky

(54,039 posts)

7. That one case where Scalia wrote the majority.

Reply to unionworks (Original post)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 07:35 AM

Apr 2012

They ruled that the cops using heat-detecting sensors to see if a guy was growing pot in his house (he was) was a violation of 'search and seizure' because it was too intrusive. But it's just wild hairs like that one, when Scalia happened to be having a libertarian hair day. Mostly, it's going in the opposite direction.

unionworks

(3,574 posts)

11. Good one

Reply to Bucky (Reply #7)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 07:05 PM

Apr 2012

but it seems the answers I'm getting are cases that would have a rather limited scope.

lame54

(35,302 posts)

13. You mean 2-vote Scalia

Reply to Bucky (Reply #7)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 07:18 PM

Apr 2012

Bucky

(54,039 posts)

14. Actually I recall Thomas dissented from Scalia's ruling on that one.

Reply to lame54 (Reply #13)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 08:31 PM

Apr 2012

I know, it's a shame when facts don't conform to our prejudices.

hack89

(39,171 posts)

8. District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago

Reply to unionworks (Original post)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 07:50 AM

Apr 2012

recognized the 2A as a individual right.

hack89

(39,171 posts)

9. UNITED STATES v. JONES

Reply to unionworks (Original post)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 07:53 AM

Apr 2012

required the police to get a warrant to put a GPS tracking unit on your car.

unionworks

(3,574 posts)

12. both of those are good...

Reply to hack89 (Reply #9)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 07:06 PM

Apr 2012

...as I stated above, though, it seems like there are no broad sweeping rulings to defend civil liberties such as declaring the "Patriot Act" unconstitutional.

alc

(1,151 posts)

10. court can't expand liberties but can protect them

Reply to unionworks (Original post)

Wed Apr 4, 2012, 08:02 AM

Apr 2012

they can only stop the other branches from taking our liberties. I guess they could rule an "old" law unconstitutional and it would be like giving us more freedom, but only putting us back to where we were before the law.

they have not protected our liberties very well. I hope they protect our liberties in the ACA. Either find mandates unconstitutional, or find a way to word the opinion so that only a very narrow definition of "mandate" is allowed and any expansion of that definition is called out as unconsitutional. Giving the government the authority to mandate purchase of private products is a significant erosion of our liberties. I do not believe it will only be used for good - hopefully the US will be around a long time and if so, it will likely suffer from some pretty horrible leadership at times.

Reply to this discussion