Supreme Court Cases as PoDs

[wolf_brother]

Based on John Fredrick Parker's thread in After 1900, let's see the Before 1900 version.

Ware v. Hylton (1796) is a little known decision which effectively ruled that US debtors couldn't hide behind the 1783 Treaty of Paris in order to avoid paying their debts to their British counterparts. It was decided by a divided court; if things had gone differently early relations between Britain and the US likely wouldn't have been so cordial.

The Slaughter-House Cases (1874) effectively gutted the newly-enacted Fourteenth Amendment. It was a 5-4 split decision, change just one vote (or justice) on the court and you effectively have late 20th century interpretation of equality before the law during Reconstruction.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Somebody should explain how Dred Scott coukd have been different here. Also I posted this in After 1900 thread:

Was thinking earlier about how atrocious the Supreme Court was with regards to Civil Liberties in the decades following the Civil War, and found myself looking over a list a cases to find the best opportunity for a turning point. I'd say I found it in two cases that actually resisted what would eventually come to be the incorporation doctrine reading of the 14th Amendment: the Slaughterhouse Cases (1874) and US v Cruikshank (1876). Interestingly, despite having eight justices in common, between these two there was only one consistent dissenter, and two consistent majority men; AAR, they're both 5-4 decisions, and the former can be switched if Grant nominates someone other than Hunt in late 1872 (which would have fairly few other butterflies, as Justice Hunt had an incapacitating stroke in 1878 OTL). Reversing Cruikshank with such a contained PoD may be a little trickier, but maybe doable if built atop a different Slaughterhouse.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

It will in no way, shape or form get confusing with threads with the exact same names appearing on the front page.

 

[wolf_brother]

It will in no way, shape or form get confusing with threads with the exact same names appearing on the front page.

Indeed.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

You should write Before 1900 somewhere in the title.

 

[wolf_brother]

Bumping this

I'm not sure if it's lack of interest, or the fact that most Pre-WWII Supreme Court cases seemed to have been decided by a larger majority if not outright unanimously.

 

[Captain Jack]

Marbury v. Madison the case established the supreme courts authority of judicial review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

 

[Anaxagoras]

Marbury v. Madison the case established the supreme courts authority of judicial review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

Yeah, but there was never really a chance that the Marshall court would have ruled differently than it did in that case. It was a unanimous decision, IIRC.

 

[wolf_brother]

Marbury v. Madison the case established the supreme courts authority of judicial review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

Considering that was a unanimous decision with two abstentions it'd take quite alot to change that.

 

[Captain Jack]

Yeah, but there was never really a chance that the Marshall court would have ruled differently than it did in that case. It was a unanimous decision, IIRC.

True, I was just throwing out the first significant case that came to mind

 

[phx1138]

Something else to consider: if you want to turn Cruikshank or Slaughter-House, you also need to change the usual SCotUS attitude until well into the 20th Century, namely, that the Constitution didn't apply to or govern state law. This was why, IIRC, 5th Amendment protection was widely denied, to name just one thing...

If Cruikshank does go the other way, it makes gun control a great deal harder...

Thinking of the 14th Amendment, tho, what case(s) gave corporations "personhood"? Changing that would seem to make the likes of Citizens United much harder to win... (Also maybe the New England "condemnation" case; what was it called...?)