Does anyone know of a case where they think the Supreme Court did a good thing?

Question

I need this to be as recent as possible.

Please give reference to where to find info on the case.

Answer 1

Definitely not Roe v. Wade. I would say Bush v. Gore, the 2000 election. It saved us from Al Gore who would have been the most disastrous President in U.S. History. If he had become President, all American women would have been wearing burkas after 9/11 because the Democrats would have rolled over for Al Qaeda.

Answer 2

You are asking me to judge a Judge. No man can judge a Judge. It is akin to judging God because the Judge is the right hand of God the deliverer of justice. We cannot question God. Therefore I cannot judge a Judge. If you have found something wrong with a Judgment you can appeal and thereafter yet again only a Judge will Judge. You cannot become nor ask for me to become a Judge. If you want to complain against the Judge for some reason, then the matter will positively be heard and decided. But yet again only a Judge will Judge. No one else is eligible for this seat as is declared by God in all the scriptures. No reference will be required for a fact which is also driven hard into us by History.

Answer 3

Lets see, recent huh?
Well the high court has ruled that local goverments have the right to take your property under "emminent domain" for commercial purposes. The Consitution specificaly says imminent domain is only for the public good when there is no other alternative.
They also ruled on the botched 2001 election in Florida even though the Consitution specificaly says they couldn't rule on a state election.
They've ruled that goverment employees don't have the right to sue the goverment for breaking labor laws that the rest of us can sue for. The Consitution specificaly states that "due process" is for every one, no exceptions.
.
Gee, let me think, what good have they done lately?
I bet your teacher wanted you to discover this for yourself, right?

Answer 4

The presidential election in 2000. I think they did good in making the state of Florida handle their own screw-up, instead of dumping it off. The Supreme Court is only supposed to handle cases that can not be resolved at lower levels, not any case that local authorities consider too hot to handle.

Answer 5

Supreme Court Guantanamo Decision
Steven C. Welsh

CDI Research Analyst

June 30, 2004
::printer-friendly version::

With a decision notably brief for the mountain of argument leading up to it, the U.S. Supreme Court in Rasul v. Bush held on June 28, 2004, that foreign nationals imprisoned without charge at the Guantanamo Bay interrogation camps were entitled to bring legal action challenging their captivity in U.S. federal civilian courts.

Justice John Paul Stephens' majority opinion was joined by Justices Sandra Day O'Conner, David Souter, Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. Justice Anthony Kennedy joined in the decision but disagreed sufficiently with the majority's analysis to issue a separate concurring opinion. Justice Antonin Scalia authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas.

The decision addressed the question of "whether United States courts lacked jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba." Rasul v. Bush, No. 03-334, al Odah v. United States, 542 U.S. __ (2004)(slip. op., at 1), www.cdi.org/news/law/rasul-decision.pdf.

The court reversed the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which had held that the Supreme Court's 1950 decision in Johnson v. Eisentrager barred Guantanamo detainees from bringing actions challenging their detentions in U.S. courts because they were foreign nationals outside U.S. sovereign territory.

Eisentrager involved German nationals who, in the closing days of World War II, violated the terms of Germany's surrender by continuing to wage war against the allies in the Pacific theater. The Eisentrager plaintiffs had been tried and convicted by a military commission (with some of their alleged confederates acquitted), and imprisoned at a U.S. military base in Germany. Eisentrager was an arguably tangled opinion in which the Supreme Court purportedly declined to recognize petitioners' right for habeas corpus review, only in fact to review the facts of their case. It set out elements detailing why the Eisentrager petitioners were not entitled to further threshold procedural steps such as habeas corpus, finding among other things that they were enemy aliens duly charged and convicted for violating the laws of war by a lawfully constituted tribunal.

Answer 6

If you did anything good (against Bush) you will be looking for your next meal ticket.
the added link has many videos on politics.
2nd link has good info, for the open minded

Answer 7

Roe v Wade!!