‘Marriage’ Issue Settled? Hardly. Four Historical Cases in Which the Supreme Court GOT IT WRONG

ZCamp

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Though liberals likely hoped that the Supreme Court’s recent same-sex marriage ruling would put a stop to debates on the subject, many have pointed out that there exists a higher standard of morality than the Supreme Court and that, though the court may be the highest in the land, they are not infallible.[/vc_column_text][banner300 banner=”5517620b381df”][vc_column_text]For example, the Court has upheld the legal definition of slaves as property, the constitutionality of forced sterilizations and the internment of Americans without due process. Thus, while all respect the high institution, some are noting that we, as citizens, are not obliged to view the Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex unions as the product of an infallible, unquestioned institution.

Here are several instances where the Supreme Court was just flat-out wrong:

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

Dred Scott, a slave, was taken to “free” territories and sued for his freedom. In a whopping 7-2 decision, the Court denied the request and declared that no black person, free or enslaved, could be an American citizen and could hold no standing to sue in federal court.

The Taney court also held that the federal government could not regulate slavery in federal territories that had been acquired since the nation’s birth.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

What this did, essentially, was codify the next half-century’s struggle with segregation. The court voted 7-1. One abstained and only a single justice dissented, Justice John Marshall Harlan.

The court held that racial segregation was constitutional under the doctrine of “separate but equal.” This doctrine would be overturned in 1954, but Plessy v. Ferguson stands as a black mark upon the Court’s moral authority.

[/vc_column_text][banner300 banner=”553157113d3ff”][vc_column_text]Buck v. Bell (1927)

In one of the uglier Supreme Court rulings, the Taft Court upheld forced sterilization of the mentally unfit “for the protection and health of the state.”

This case validated the concept of eugenics- attempts to clean the gene pool by allowing the forced sterilization of those with mental defects.

Worse yet: the Supreme Court has never overturned this ruling. So, as liberals posture as if the Supreme Court is the current incarnation of pure, unfiltered justice in America, it should be noted that this same court rules while allowing forced sterilizations to be, in theory, the “settled law of the land.”

Korematsu v. United States (1944) 

This Supreme Court ruling occurred during a time of national panic as America fought a brutal and vile enemy in the South Pacific. Fearing sabotage, the federal government relocated millions of Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps and held them for much of the war. The constitutionality of the order was challenged, but the Court held that the internment was not a violation of these Americans’ right to due process.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

About the Author

Greg Campbell
Greg Campbell
An unapologetic patriot and conservative, Greg emerged within the blossoming Tea Party Movement as a political analyst dedicated to educating and advocating for the preservation of our constitutional principles and a free-market solution to problems birthed by economic liberalism. From authoring scathing commentaries to conducting interviews with some of the biggest names in politics today including party leaders, activists and conservative media personalities, Greg has worked to counter the left’s media narratives with truthful discussions of the biggest issues affecting Americans today. Greg’s primary area of focus is Second Amendment issues and the advancement of honest discussion concerning the constitutional right that protects all others. He lives in the Northwest with his wife, Heather, and enjoys writing, marksmanship and the outdoors.
JOIN POLITISTICK
Subscribe for FREE today
to stay in the loop!

Send this to friend