What are /r/supremecourt's favorite Products & Services?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

If you are interested in learning what drives Supreme Court justices to make "new law" and uphold certain decisions, read the book "Scorpions". A lot of their important decisions, such as Brown v. Board of Education, are driven by global perception. The Brown decision was not driven by the desire to help people of color, or by "social justice".

The Nazi's adopted a lot of the tactics Americans used to suppress, control, and punish people of color; especially in the South. This became common knowledge during the Nuremberg trials. Brown was decided a few years after the end of the Nuremberg trials. The U.S. Supreme Court wanted to "clean up" the United States global image, and "show" they had nothing in common with the Nazi regime. Brown gave them the opportunity so say, "see, everyone in America is treated equally".

There is a reason why decisions such as Brown and Roe were not codified into federal law.

Also, a lot of decisions that were originally decided to suppress the rights of certain groups were later used to benefit those same groups, such as the "Korematsu" decision.

> M. Margaret McKeown, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, was born in Casper, Wyoming, and calls herself a “child of the American West” who has a passion for the outdoors.

When she came East for law school at Georgetown University Law Center in 1975, she spent a lot of time at the C&O Canal near the Potomac River, which the late Justice William O. Douglas prevented from being turned into a highway. She became a Ninth Circuit judge in 1998.

> Fast-forward: McKeown recently decided to write about Douglas and his passion for the outdoors, and how he became an environmental crusader while also working as a Supreme Court justice for 36 years, the longest tenure of any associate justice in history.

McKeown wrote an article in 2019 in the Journal of Supreme Court History about Douglas and his dissent in the 1972 Sierra Club v. Morton case, in which he famously asserted that environmental entities such as rivers or valleys could have standing to “sue for their own preservation.” McKeown decided to broaden the story of his environmental legacy. “It was a lark that turned into a book,” McKeown said in an interview... The book is titled “CITIZEN JUSTICE: The Environmental Legacy of William O. Douglas—Public Advocate and Conservation Champion” and is available on Amazon.

I can appreciate good advocacy. (But from a sitting Supreme Court Justice?) Regardless, interesting history. Archive link here if paywalled.

The Words That Made Us: America's Constitutional Conversation, 1760-1840

Reed points this out towards the beginning of the book where he talks about ways the colonists proposed to remain loyal to the Crown while separating from Parliament. I'm not sure if there's a better source, though Reed likely lists them, it's just the book that introduced the concept to me.

This is essentially what the countries you listed did though. Only when they did it Parliament and the Crown realized that they needed to listen or end up with another complete separation.

> Not before they gave themselves that power in Marbury v Madison.

I've been reading The Words that Made us by Akhil Reed Amar which actually makes the argument that Marbury v. Madison wasn't really the Supreme Court giving itself this right but rather stating something tautological to the Framers. Reed's assertion is that no lawyer trained in British law, which would have been all of the Framers who were lawyers, would have understood the Supreme Court to not have the power of judicial review. The implication he's given for it being left out of the Constitution is because the Framers expected all branches to act as checks on each other for unconstitional actions.

He uses the Sedition Act of 1798 as an example. It was never ruled on by the Supreme Court but Jefferson expressly refused to enforce the act and pardoned anyone convicted under it frequently citing that the act was unconstitutional. This Reed argues was how the checks and balances should work with POTUS and SCOTUS stopping Congress from acting beyond its scope.

I'm not sure I agree with him especially when he states that everyone else has gotten it wrong. I just thought it was an interesting argument to bring up here.