Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   GOP: Obamacare may lead to forced sterilizations   (thehill.com) divider line 160
    More: Interesting, forced sterilization, GOP, funds, spaying and neutering, slush funds, Energy and Commerce Committee, urban farms, health care law  
•       •       •

3033 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 May 2012 at 6:03 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



160 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-03 07:23:18 PM  

Cletus C.: The hilarity of government running health care does not need to be imagined or fabricated.


Actually, the rest of the industrialized countries seem to have it figured out quite well... Universal coverage....at a far lower cost per person than the USA incurs, with far better outcomes overall. America seems hung up on the idea that Doctors MUST be firmly in the 1% club and Health-Related corporations have a god-given right to massive revenues/profits in healthcare delivery and equipment.

Canada and Europe FTW!
 
2012-05-03 07:24:36 PM  

Lord_Baull: Cletus C.: The hilarity of government running health care does not need to be imagined or fabricated.

[inigomontoya.jpg]

Or perhaps you're referring to the government-run military healthcare system, one of the best in the world?


I see someone has never been treated by a military doctor.
 
2012-05-03 07:26:23 PM  
Do you conservatives see how dumb you guys are acting? Do you even see it at all?
 
2012-05-03 07:28:21 PM  

coeyagi: I would like to apply the 3 Rs to this formula: Rapists, Repeat Offenders and Republicans.


When do we get to Forced Beheadings?
 
2012-05-03 07:29:22 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Do you conservatives see how dumb you guys are acting? Do you even see it at all?


Self-awareness is the debbil's toolbox, you homo socialist!
 
2012-05-03 07:32:43 PM  

Cletus C.: Lord_Baull: Cletus C.: The hilarity of government running health care does not need to be imagined or fabricated.

[inigomontoya.jpg]

Or perhaps you're referring to the government-run military healthcare system, one of the best in the world?

I see someone has never been treated by a military doctor.


You?
 
2012-05-03 07:34:32 PM  
DNRTFA.

But are forced sterilizations a bad thing?

(hears another car blaring the horn at the kids playing in the road while the white trash daddy pretend to work on those piles of scrap metal)
 
2012-05-03 07:40:14 PM  

ivelostfaithinhumanity: DNRTFA.

But are forced sterilizations a bad thing?

(hears another car blaring the horn at the kids playing in the road while the white trash daddy pretend to work on those piles of scrap metal)


You should read the article.
 
2012-05-03 07:41:02 PM  
If we don't get forced sterilizations we should each be allowed to murder one person.

/There can be only one
 
2012-05-03 07:45:36 PM  
Well, to be fair, if Obamacare DOES lead to forced sterilizations, a conservative Supreme Court did uphold forced sterilizations once in 1927 (Buck v. Bell) so who's to say another conservative Supreme Court won't uphold it again today?

And hell, since exporting negative eugenics to Germany in the 30's worked so well, maybe we should start looking for another country to export it to this time if it happens.

(Yes, my post is massively sarcastic, but I wanted to make a comment about Buck v. Bell since it's unquestionably one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in their entire history.)
 
2012-05-03 07:48:07 PM  
How about we forcibly sterilize anyone stupid enough to believe the GOP bullshiat? I'd support that.
 
2012-05-03 07:49:11 PM  

Fricknmaniac: Well, to be fair, if Obamacare DOES lead to forced sterilizations, a conservative Supreme Court did uphold forced sterilizations once in 1927 (Buck v. Bell) so who's to say another conservative Supreme Court won't uphold it again today?

And hell, since exporting negative eugenics to Germany in the 30's worked so well, maybe we should start looking for another country to export it to this time if it happens.

(Yes, my post is massively sarcastic, but I wanted to make a comment about Buck v. Bell since it's unquestionably one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in their entire history.)


Citizens United would like a word.

//both undermine human rights that have been sought after for millenia, take your pick, they both suck dick
 
2012-05-03 07:55:57 PM  

coeyagi: Fricknmaniac: Well, to be fair, if Obamacare DOES lead to forced sterilizations, a conservative Supreme Court did uphold forced sterilizations once in 1927 (Buck v. Bell) so who's to say another conservative Supreme Court won't uphold it again today?

And hell, since exporting negative eugenics to Germany in the 30's worked so well, maybe we should start looking for another country to export it to this time if it happens.

(Yes, my post is massively sarcastic, but I wanted to make a comment about Buck v. Bell since it's unquestionably one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in their entire history.)

Citizens United would like a word.

//both undermine human rights that have been sought after for millenia, take your pick, they both suck dick


Dred Scott and he decision to make Bush POTUS in 2000 would like some face time here as well.

/Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad factors as well
//'Corporations *are* people, my friends'.
 
2012-05-03 08:00:41 PM  
I did say one of the worst, not the worst. Buck v. Bell was just an abysmally terrible decision that ended up not having many repercussions, unlike Citizen's United, but was still a terrible decision.

A few months ago I actually decided to try and make a non-partisan list of the worst Supreme Court decisions, and it turned out to be a lot harder than I thought it was. I was shooting for 10, but never got more than 7. (I didn't add Citizen's United because of how partisan the support/opposition to it is.)

The list I ended up with (in no particular order):

Buck v. Bell: Upheld negative eugenics (forced sterilization).
Plessy v. Ferguson: Separate, but equal.
Dred Scott v. Sanford: Slaves had no legal standing and couldn't sue.
Elk v. Wilkins: Native Americans could not claim natural born citizenship
Korematsu v. United States: Upheld the Japanese internments during WWII.
Kelo v. City of New London: Government could seize land under eminent domain to sell to private citizens for redevelopment.
Slaughter House Cases: Too long to summarize: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter-House_Cases
 
2012-05-03 08:05:06 PM  
While it is an absolute undeniable fact that the whole eugenics movement arose from liberals of the early 20th century, its about as popular among them now as Fred Phelps.

Oh there are a few elitists out there who still think it has some merit but this was at least one idea the left recognized the fallacy of a long time ago, and abandoned.
 
2012-05-03 08:22:37 PM  

Fricknmaniac: I did say one of the worst, not the worst. Buck v. Bell was just an abysmally terrible decision that ended up not having many repercussions, unlike Citizen's United, but was still a terrible decision.

A few months ago I actually decided to try and make a non-partisan list of the worst Supreme Court decisions, and it turned out to be a lot harder than I thought it was. I was shooting for 10, but never got more than 7. (I didn't add Citizen's United because of how partisan the support/opposition to it is.)

The list I ended up with (in no particular order):

Buck v. Bell: Upheld negative eugenics (forced sterilization).
Plessy v. Ferguson: Separate, but equal.
Dred Scott v. Sanford: Slaves had no legal standing and couldn't sue.
Elk v. Wilkins: Native Americans could not claim natural born citizenship
Korematsu v. United States: Upheld the Japanese internments during WWII.
Kelo v. City of New London: Government could seize land under eminent domain to sell to private citizens for redevelopment.
Slaughter House Cases: Too long to summarize: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter-House_Cases


Plessy was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education; Dredd Scott was overturned by the 14th and 15th Amendments. The Slaughter-house Cases were gradually overturned by labor laws over the years, and especially by the Civil Rights Acts.

Elk v. Wilkins was superceded by the Indian Citizenship Act, and Kelo, though never overturned, led to massive changes nationwide in eminent domain laws.

Out of your list, only Bell and Korematsu have never been overturned or superceded by anything, although theoretically Federal regulations on the arrest and detention of foreign nationals should prevent mass internments. However, technically, Bell and Korematsu remain "good" law.
 
2012-05-03 08:27:20 PM  

Corvus: What's ironic is they go all ape shiat about a made up idea that Obama will force sterilization but they have NO PROBLEM with the government forcing women to carry an embryo to term.


I always assumed it gave them a boner to know that the GOP would force a woman into carrying THEIR embryo to term. And it's not a good idea to provide any comfort to wannabee rapists and/or the GOP.
 
2012-05-03 08:28:28 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: Lord_Baull: Cletus C.: The hilarity of government running health care does not need to be imagined or fabricated.

[inigomontoya.jpg]

Or perhaps you're referring to the government-run military healthcare system, one of the best in the world?

I see someone has never been treated by a military doctor.

You?


Heh.

It's the civilian doctors at military hospitals that I'm wary of.

/fark you, Madigan
//fark you hard
 
2012-05-03 08:32:09 PM  
Yeah, it's good that for the most part that the Supreme Court at least turned around and overruled a lot of the previous worst decisions.

But it still makes you wonder what they were thinking in the first place when they originally made those decisions.

It might just seem like 20/20 hindsight, but it's just hard for me to fathom how they came to those rulings in the first place in those decisions.
 
2012-05-03 08:33:12 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Fricknmaniac: I did say one of the worst, not the worst. Buck v. Bell was just an abysmally terrible decision that ended up not having many repercussions, unlike Citizen's United, but was still a terrible decision.

A few months ago I actually decided to try and make a non-partisan list of the worst Supreme Court decisions, and it turned out to be a lot harder than I thought it was. I was shooting for 10, but never got more than 7. (I didn't add Citizen's United because of how partisan the support/opposition to it is.)

The list I ended up with (in no particular order):

Buck v. Bell: Upheld negative eugenics (forced sterilization).
Plessy v. Ferguson: Separate, but equal.
Dred Scott v. Sanford: Slaves had no legal standing and couldn't sue.
Elk v. Wilkins: Native Americans could not claim natural born citizenship
Korematsu v. United States: Upheld the Japanese internments during WWII.
Kelo v. City of New London: Government could seize land under eminent domain to sell to private citizens for redevelopment.
Slaughter House Cases: Too long to summarize: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter-House_Cases

Plessy was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education; Dredd Scott was overturned by the 14th and 15th Amendments. The Slaughter-house Cases were gradually overturned by labor laws over the years, and especially by the Civil Rights Acts.

Elk v. Wilkins was superceded by the Indian Citizenship Act, and Kelo, though never overturned, led to massive changes nationwide in eminent domain laws.

Out of your list, only Bell and Korematsu have never been overturned or superceded by anything, although theoretically Federal regulations on the arrest and detention of foreign nationals should prevent mass internments. However, technically, Bell and Korematsu remain "good" law.


And Kelo v. New London wasn't all that bad of a decision either. It was the natural extension of precedent going back to at least the late 19th century, maintaining judicial deference to legislative determinations of what constitutes "public use."

The Hawaiian case which preceded Kelo by a couple of decades is a good example of why. All the land in Hawaii had concentrated into the hands of a few white property owners. The legislature exercised eminent domain to buy it up and redistribute it more equitably. It was good policy then, and it's perfectly constitutional.
 
2012-05-03 08:33:17 PM  

randomjsa: While it is an absolute undeniable fact that the whole eugenics movement arose from liberals of the early 20th century, its about as popular among them now as Fred Phelps.

Oh there are a few elitists out there who still think it has some merit but this was at least one idea the left recognized the fallacy of a long time ago, and abandoned.


In 1907, influenced by the eugenics movement, Indiana became the first state in the United States to adopt a law authorizing the sterilization of institutionalized persons thought to be unfit to reproduce. Governor J. Frank Hanly(R) signed the law,[1] but Hanly's successor, Governor Thomas R. Marshall(D), blocked its use.[2]

Link
 
2012-05-03 08:33:59 PM  

coeyagi: Cletus C.: Doc Daneeka: Cletus C.: The hilarity of government running health care does not need to be imagined or fabricated.

No, indeed - one only has to look around at the rest of the First World (where state-managed universal health care is standard and accepted) and their substantially better life expectancies and health outcomes.

No need to have to imagine anything.

I don't think those countries are going to run our health care, unless I am mistaken.

So what you're saying is that the U.S. doesn't have the ability to make it work? What kind of teabagging patriot are you?

//USA! USA!


Yeah, we're too stoopid. Just throw more people in prison. They can get government run healthcare there.
 
2012-05-03 08:34:47 PM  

randomjsa: While it is an absolute undeniable fact that the whole eugenics movement arose from liberals of the early 20th century, its about as popular among them now as Fred Phelps.

Oh there are a few elitists out there who still think it has some merit but this was at least one idea the left recognized the fallacy of a long time ago, and abandoned.


I would support this if you were the first to volunteer. Go for it, patriot!
 
2012-05-03 08:35:30 PM  
Oh man, if only...
 
2012-05-03 08:36:07 PM  

Nadie_AZ: What a terrible article.

Also,

With Wednesday's statement, the House GOP saw a chance to strengthen its position.

"During a time of record debt and deficits, providing the Secretary of [Health and Human Services] with a blank check ... is simply not a responsible way to spend the taxpayers' dollars," the release stated.

So you budgeted HHS a blank check? Why'd you do that?


Because earmarks are evil?
 
2012-05-03 08:57:14 PM  
"But the GOP lawmakers may not have their facts in order, The Hill has learned about a decade or two ago."
 
2012-05-03 09:02:47 PM  

Nadie_AZ: What a terrible article.

Also,

With Wednesday's statement, the House GOP saw a chance to strengthen its position.

"During a time of record debt and deficits, providing the Secretary of [Health and Human Services] with a blank check ... is simply not a responsible way to spend the taxpayers' dollars," the release stated.

So you budgeted HHS a blank check? Why'd you do that?


Well, yeah. We all know only DoD gets to have a blank check.
 
2012-05-03 09:13:05 PM  

JRoo: randomjsa: While it is an absolute undeniable fact that the whole eugenics movement arose from liberals of the early 20th century, its about as popular among them now as Fred Phelps.

Oh there are a few elitists out there who still think it has some merit but this was at least one idea the left recognized the fallacy of a long time ago, and abandoned.

In 1907, influenced by the eugenics movement, Indiana became the first state in the United States to adopt a law authorizing the sterilization of institutionalized persons thought to be unfit to reproduce. Governor J. Frank Hanly(R) signed the law,[1] but Hanly's successor, Governor Thomas R. Marshall(D), blocked its use.[2]

Link


And before randomneuralfiring brings up birth control pioneer Margaret Sanger:

Sanger, Margaret (1919). Birth Control and Racial Betterment. Birth Control Review. p. 11. "We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother."
 
2012-05-03 09:30:20 PM  
This just in: Listening to the GOP may increase derpage.
 
2012-05-03 09:31:32 PM  

Cyberluddite: I wish (1) that this was actually true, and (2) that I got to be the one to decide who goes on the Forced Sterilization List.


I smell reality TV gold!
 
2012-05-03 09:56:33 PM  

bugontherug: And Kelo v. New London wasn't all that bad of a decision either. It was the natural extension of precedent going back to at least the late 19th century, maintaining judicial deference to legislative determinations of what constitutes "public use."

The Hawaiian case which preceded Kelo by a couple of decades is a good example of why. All the land in Hawaii had concentrated into the hands of a few white property owners. The legislature exercised eminent domain to buy it up and redistribute it more equitably. It was good policy then, and it's perfectly constitutional.


Kelo wasn't bad law, it was just done for bad reasons. When we did Kelo (either in Property or Contracts?--it wasn't Con Law) my first reaction was that nothing was wrong about the LAW in Kelo, just that the civic developers and the city were a bunch of snakes for using eminent domain instead of buying the property outright. They wanted free property for their developer buddies, for a development that wasn't any good in the first place.

But the legal foundation wasn't wrong.
 
2012-05-03 10:04:45 PM  

Gyrfalcon: bugontherug: And Kelo v. New London wasn't all that bad of a decision either. It was the natural extension of precedent going back to at least the late 19th century, maintaining judicial deference to legislative determinations of what constitutes "public use."

The Hawaiian case which preceded Kelo by a couple of decades is a good example of why. All the land in Hawaii had concentrated into the hands of a few white property owners. The legislature exercised eminent domain to buy it up and redistribute it more equitably. It was good policy then, and it's perfectly constitutional.

Kelo wasn't bad law, it was just done for bad reasons. When we did Kelo (either in Property or Contracts?--it wasn't Con Law) my first reaction was that nothing was wrong about the LAW in Kelo, just that the civic developers and the city were a bunch of snakes for using eminent domain instead of buying the property outright. They wanted free property for their developer buddies, for a development that wasn't any good in the first place.

But the legal foundation wasn't wrong.


The exercise of eminent domain requires just compensation. It's been awhile, but I'm fairly sure "just compensation" amounts to fair market value or the amount of diminution in the property's value as a result of the "taking." If the civic leaders wanted free land, they picked the wrong legal mechanism. In fact, no such mechanism exists.

In short, the city did buy the land outright.
 
2012-05-03 10:09:18 PM  
Wow, Republicans! Just when I think you can't get any more hilariously retarded, you come up with something like this.
 
2012-05-03 10:20:02 PM  
I'm pretty sure sterilizing welfare moms with fancy finger nails is among the top pre-bedtime fantasies for most republicans. Falling just a bit behind saving the cute teller with concealed carry and tied up by Sarah Palin.
 
2012-05-03 10:29:52 PM  

duffman13: Funny, I thought the GOP was for forced sterilizations, as long as it was for brown people and welfare queens, and especially when those categories overlap.

/imokwiththis.jpg
//as long as it's done to stupid people
///tea party we'll start with you


Actually, that was progressive hero and eugenicist Margaret Sanger, who advocated that birth control would solve the negro problem
 
2012-05-03 10:59:46 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: JRoo: randomjsa: While it is an absolute undeniable fact that the whole eugenics movement arose from liberals of the early 20th century, its about as popular among them now as Fred Phelps.

Oh there are a few elitists out there who still think it has some merit but this was at least one idea the left recognized the fallacy of a long time ago, and abandoned.

In 1907, influenced by the eugenics movement, Indiana became the first state in the United States to adopt a law authorizing the sterilization of institutionalized persons thought to be unfit to reproduce. Governor J. Frank Hanly(R) signed the law,[1] but Hanly's successor, Governor Thomas R. Marshall(D), blocked its use.[2]

Link

And before randomneuralfiring brings up birth control pioneer Margaret Sanger:

Sanger, Margaret (1919). Birth Control and Racial Betterment. Birth Control Review. p. 11. "We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother."


So close, and yet so far:

o5iiawah: Actually, that was progressive hero and eugenicist Margaret Sanger, who advocated that birth control would solve the negro problem

 
2012-05-03 11:20:23 PM  
GOP: Obamacare may lead to forced sterilizations

No it won't. Thanks for trying though. Douchebags.
 
Kiz
2012-05-03 11:25:00 PM  

o5iiawah: duffman13: Funny, I thought the GOP was for forced sterilizations, as long as it was for brown people and welfare queens, and especially when those categories overlap.

/imokwiththis.jpg
//as long as it's done to stupid people
///tea party we'll start with you

Actually, that was progressive hero and eugenicist Margaret Sanger, who advocated that birth control would solve the negro problem


Actually, she advocated allowing negro women who wanted voluntary birth control to have it, in order to make their lives better. Which it did.

And everyone lived happily ever after (except for the fundies).
 
2012-05-03 11:50:53 PM  
Honestly that is the biggest pile of horse shiat I have heard a herp a derped.
On the plus, side if it was true then we wouldn't have a brood that will fall for this shiat in the future.
 
2012-05-04 12:14:31 AM  

RodneyToady: Cyberluddite: I wish (1) that this was actually true, and (2) that I got to be the one to decide who goes on the Forced Sterilization List.

I don't have a list so much as an array. Right now, it just consists of 75% of Yahoo commenters. I figure that's a good start.


Can't we start with WND commentators, move up to fat dead bastard, I mean Breibart.com, then do the Yahoo twats?
 
2012-05-04 12:18:14 AM  
Godwined.
 
2012-05-04 01:38:57 AM  

bugontherug: Gyrfalcon: bugontherug: And Kelo v. New London wasn't all that bad of a decision either. It was the natural extension of precedent going back to at least the late 19th century, maintaining judicial deference to legislative determinations of what constitutes "public use."

The Hawaiian case which preceded Kelo by a couple of decades is a good example of why. All the land in Hawaii had concentrated into the hands of a few white property owners. The legislature exercised eminent domain to buy it up and redistribute it more equitably. It was good policy then, and it's perfectly constitutional.

Kelo wasn't bad law, it was just done for bad reasons. When we did Kelo (either in Property or Contracts?--it wasn't Con Law) my first reaction was that nothing was wrong about the LAW in Kelo, just that the civic developers and the city were a bunch of snakes for using eminent domain instead of buying the property outright. They wanted free property for their developer buddies, for a development that wasn't any good in the first place.

But the legal foundation wasn't wrong.

The exercise of eminent domain requires just compensation. It's been awhile, but I'm fairly sure "just compensation" amounts to fair market value or the amount of diminution in the property's value as a result of the "taking." If the civic leaders wanted free land, they picked the wrong legal mechanism. In fact, no such mechanism exists.

In short, the city did buy the land outright.


They did buy the land, but the the "fair market value" wasn't being determined by the owners, but by the city, which had a vested interest in making sure the "market value" was valued as low as humanly possible. IIRC, and it's been a while since I looked at Kelo, one of the biggest problems people were having when the initial deal went through (not as the case went to court) was that the people were being offered $X amount for their property "fair market value" while the city was pumping the developers, and the lawyers, up with how the property was REALLY going to be worth $XXXXsquared and they were getting such an awesome deal by not having to pay what the property was actually worth but what their (paid) appraisers said it was worth.

The idea was that the city paid for it, sure, but they were also getting a kickback from the developer because the developer was assured of $XXXXX once all the new renters came in. A lot of that people never knew about, because the actual case in Kelo involved an old lady who just didn't want to move, and it turned into a mean-developer-vs-nice-old-lady case. Some people in the development area would have sold if the prices had been better; but they didn't want the city to screw them either, hence the class suit.
 
2012-05-04 02:20:51 AM  
Wow, the unknown and ignorance is sure scarey for conservatives. Are any of them not cowards?

BTW, being stupid and an a$$hole does not make you brave, it just makes you stupid and an a$$hole.
 
2012-05-04 03:39:32 AM  
We can talk about forced sterilization when we start to run out of shiat. We are running out of shiat. It won't come with 'Obamacare'. But when those in power start to decide who gets the maximum sustainable food and water supplies, then we can discuss sterilization and how many children are allowed per household.
 
2012-05-04 04:02:50 AM  
Jesus, I certainly hope so.
 
2012-05-04 07:15:51 AM  

winterwhile: so

AM I the first to be put on the list?

must start drinking again, Obamacare is here


I won't argue with you - there's no such thing as a bad reason for drinking.
 
2012-05-04 08:29:29 AM  
As long as it is Republicans being sterilized, I'm cool with it.
 
2012-05-04 09:36:58 AM  
Good can they start with politicians.
 
2012-05-04 09:59:28 AM  
Didn't we play this game once before only it was titled FEMA Camps?
 
2012-05-04 10:27:07 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Fricknmaniac: I did say one of the worst, not the worst. Buck v. Bell was just an abysmally terrible decision that ended up not having many repercussions, unlike Citizen's United, but was still a terrible decision.

A few months ago I actually decided to try and make a non-partisan list of the worst Supreme Court decisions, and it turned out to be a lot harder than I thought it was. I was shooting for 10, but never got more than 7. (I didn't add Citizen's United because of how partisan the support/opposition to it is.)

The list I ended up with (in no particular order):

Buck v. Bell: Upheld negative eugenics (forced sterilization).
Plessy v. Ferguson: Separate, but equal.
Dred Scott v. Sanford: Slaves had no legal standing and couldn't sue.
Elk v. Wilkins: Native Americans could not claim natural born citizenship
Korematsu v. United States: Upheld the Japanese internments during WWII.
Kelo v. City of New London: Government could seize land under eminent domain to sell to private citizens for redevelopment.
Slaughter House Cases: Too long to summarize: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter-House_Cases

Plessy was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education; Dredd Scott was overturned by the 14th and 15th Amendments. The Slaughter-house Cases were gradually overturned by labor laws over the years, and especially by the Civil Rights Acts.

Elk v. Wilkins was superceded by the Indian Citizenship Act, and Kelo, though never overturned, led to massive changes nationwide in eminent domain laws.

Out of your list, only Bell and Korematsu have never been overturned or superceded by anything, although theoretically Federal regulations on the arrest and detention of foreign nationals should prevent mass internments. However, technically, Bell and Korematsu remain "good" law.


I'm trying to remember the Holmes and Brandeis dissent regarding the Alien and Sedition Act, because that was a real stinker, too. I believe that one wasn't overturned until the seventies, so you know, fifty odd years later.
 
Displayed 50 of 160 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report