2. Ronski - Jan. 19, 1999 - 9:16 AM PT
Romer v. Evans, which established that animus against homosexuals is not sufficient reason to deny them equal protection under the law.
It is the trial which fully extended the classical liberal rejection of status to all citizens, thus completing the American Revolution.
3. cllrdr - Jan. 19, 1999 - 9:44 AM PT
Hear, hear!
4. JaDeGoLd - Jan. 19, 1999 - 9:48 AM PT
For trials affecting society:
Brown v Topeka Bd of Education
Roe v Wade
Individual trials:
Lindbergh kidnapping
Leopold and Loeb
OJ
Alger Hiss
Rosenbergs
5. msivorytower - Jan. 19, 1999 - 9:53 AM PT
Ronski
Very mundane of you, really. Had there not been Brown, I doubt there would have been a Romer. And Jade, without the precedent of Brown, do you think Roe would have happened? I see Brown as a pivotal decision in shaping the scope of federal protections of individual rights and in setting the groundwork for the entire civil rights arena in the second half of this century.
Brown definitively established the importance of the equal protection clause in protecting marginalized minorities. It led to the civil rights legislation, and the expansion of rights for all previously disenfranchised groups, including homosexuals.
6. JaDeGoLd - Jan. 19, 1999 - 10:05 AM PT
MsIT;
I agree that Brown was the landmark case of this century. However, Brown really didn't set the stage for Roe v Wade, which was argued from the standpoint of individual privacy as opposed to the civil rights of a particular group.
7. msivorytower - Jan. 19, 1999 - 10:11 AM PT
Jade,
Yes, I know that, but do you think it would even have been a case had not Brown set the precedent for taking minority rights seriously? I mean, women, as a class, were discriminated against at all levels of the society, their privacy issues would certainly not have been given any real weight had not Brown opened the channels of equality under the law that it did.
8. Jonesatlaw - Jan. 19, 1999 - 10:12 AM PT
I agree with MsIT wrt Brown, as a case, its ruling echoed throughout the law, it set the stage for legislation and societal changes in attitudes.
Most of the big cases that have affected the nation are not really that important at the trial level. Some have been obscure until the appellate courts got involved.
I think that Clinton's impeachment "trial" by the WWF- Washington Wrestling Federation, a/k/a GOP, where we present trials with entirely known outcomes for the entertainment value of cheering for Your Hero vs. Mr/Ms. Evil as the replacement for politics will be the trial of the century. Jesse Ventura is the leading edge of the wedge.
9. Ronski - Jan. 19, 1999 - 10:22 AM PT
MsIvory,
It appears I will have to return to my short-lived practice of using my unpatented irony emoticon, (i). (g)
10. msivorytower - Jan. 19, 1999 - 10:27 AM PT
Ronski
The (i) is good. The g is fascile. I hate the g. The stupid, grinning thing. F**K the g. If you want an answer from me in the future, please don't include g's. They send me into tantrums.
11. elliot803 - Jan. 19, 1999 - 10:33 AM PT
Ronski: So your post #2 wasn't serious? It sure reads serious.
12. Raskolnikov - Jan. 19, 1999 - 10:36 AM PT
I have to go with Brown. Of course, with its "all deliberate speed" instructions, no one would have called Brown the most important trial of the century until years after the fact.
13. CalGal - Jan. 19, 1999 - 10:39 AM PT
Ronski,
Judith suggested a (w) for wry. I like (i), too. Hmm.
14. elliot803 - Jan. 19, 1999 - 10:44 AM PT
I think it's hard to identify a single most important trial. Brown and Roe had big, tangible effects but other cases, like the Scopes trial and some of the First Amendment cases, may have been equally important but in less visible ways.
Can't help thinking of how the British newspapers reported the Louise Woodward verdict: "From the justice system that freed O.J. Simpson!"
15. elliot803 - Jan. 19, 1999 - 10:50 AM PT
I hate all emoticons. If you have to shout "ATTENTION: THIS IS A JOKE!" or "THIS IS IRONIC!" at the end of your comment in order to convey that meaning then you need to rewrite it.
16. msivorytower - Jan. 19, 1999 - 10:55 AM PT
Elliot
I am wholey sympathetic. Note my reaction to that stupid thing the "g". The stupid grinning thing. The thing that's supposed to convey that a nasty little comment was really only a joke. Get it?!
I would tolerate the i more than the g, simply because irony is sometimes not as easy to convey as humor. And nastiness is just plain nastiness, no "g" makes it not so.
17. Ronski - Jan. 19, 1999 - 11:06 AM PT
Elliot,
It was serious to the degree that Romer v. Evans is the most important trial of the century in this country to me, personally, but in all honesty I would have to choose Brown v. Topeka since it probably did make possible the Romer decision. The irony lies in that I would think that fellow Fraysters might expect such a post from an openly gay person, or at least from me.
Incidentally, Brown, like Roe, is a decision I support but would have preferred to have seen both argued differently and written differently. What bothers me about Brown, and for that matter, Romer, is that the rulings recognize rights in the Constitution (a court does not "give" rights, in my philosophy) not for individuals, but for a class. Nevertheless, I'll take it.
18. cllrdr - Jan. 19, 1999 - 11:09 AM PT
You bet you'll take it, Ronski. We've all got to take whatever shred of power we can. And use it.
19. Ronski - Jan. 19, 1999 - 11:15 AM PT
Cellar,
Hear, hear!
20. Judithathome - Jan. 19, 1999 - 12:47 PM PT
elliot:
If an emoticon were available for hatefulness, I'm leaning toward the (elliot).
21. elliot803 - Jan. 19, 1999 - 12:53 PM PT
Judith: I've always liked you up to now.
22. Judithathome - Jan. 19, 1999 - 1:01 PM PT
elliot:
I still like YOU..but you see? *Wry* and *irony* really DON'T translate. Those little ( ) dealies sometimes smooth over feelings that are close to the surface. But I apologize; a flip of the post that shouldn't have been...
23. elliot803 - Jan. 19, 1999 - 1:08 PM PT
Ronski:
How did Romer recognize a "class" right? The ruling was based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which applies to everyone. The court held that Amendment 2 unconstitutionally violated that right by singling out a specific group of people, homosexuals, for discrimination under the law. I fail to see what "class" right was involved.
24. wonkers2 - Jan. 19, 1999 - 1:14 PM PT
Yes, and Brown and Roe were brought about, to a considerable degree by two Eisenhower GOP appointees to the US Supreme Court--Warren and Powell. Anybody besides me old enough to remember the "Impeach Earl Warren" billboards lining the highways across the South and Midwest? The lineal descendents of the impeach Warren crowd are now trying to impeach Clinton as well as roll back the decisions of the great Warren Court.
25. cllrdr - Jan. 19, 1999 - 1:20 PM PT
I remember "Impeach Earl Warren"! I even remember Julius Monk revue skits about "Impeach Earl Warren."
26. thoughtful - Jan. 19, 1999 - 1:59 PM PT
I don't remember the "Impeach Earl Warren", but I do remember the bumper stickers that appeared after Nixon fired Archibald Cox:
"Impeach the Cox Sacker!"
Allow me to suggest that Griswold v. CT, which preceded Roe was more important in that it established a right to privacy due to "the protected penumbra of specific guarantees of the bill of rights". See here.
27. PincherMartin - Jan. 19, 1999 - 2:11 PM PT
Elliot803 --
"I think it's hard to identify a single most important trial. Brown and Roe had big, tangible effects but other cases, like the Scopes trial and some of the First Amendment cases, may have been equally important but in less visible ways."
I think that the Scopes trial has to be considered one of the most overated trials of the century. The equivilent of an early twentieth century media event. Almost nothing popularly believed of that trial was true. First, the teacher lost and the state of Tennessee won that case. Secondly, education policy was left in charge of the yahoos until Sputnik scared the crap out of the American establishment in the 50s. Rather than being a turning point for a more liberal education policy, Scopes was the harbinger of a less liberal education policy with some localities that had practiced teaching both creationism and evolution, dropping the practice of teaching evolution.
28. ScottLoar - Jan. 19, 1999 - 2:39 PM PT
It seems Msivorytower clobbered this thread in her first posting. She's right, of course.
29. elliot803 - Jan. 19, 1999 - 3:50 PM PT
The actual verdict was pretty much irrelevant to the importance of the Scopes trial. It was a landmark moral victory for science over religion.
30. JadeGold - Jan. 19, 1999 - 3:52 PM PT
Scopes was overblown.
Read "Summer for the Gods"
In essence, the trial accomplished nothing and we are still confronted with the same issues today.
31. JadeGold - Jan. 19, 1999 - 3:58 PM PT
Isn't it interesting that conservatives rail against judicial activism?
Yey, without judicial activism, we wouldn't have had the landmark decisions in cases like Brown, Romer v Evans, et al.
32. PincherMartin - Jan. 19, 1999 - 4:43 PM PT
Elliot803 --
As JadeGold has already said, the trial was overblown. It accomplished nothing (except for perhaps the downfall of Willim Jennings Bryan). You have conflated the trial's importance, giving it in hindsight, an importance that it never had.
33. MrSocko - Jan. 19, 1999 - 4:55 PM PT
J'accuse!
34. PincherMartin - Jan. 19, 1999 - 5:00 PM PT
Socko --
An outstanding choice if the thread was dedicated to most important trials in EUROPE this century.
35. gravel - Jan. 19, 1999 - 5:16 PM PT
The Lindbergh kidnapping, and not just for the questions about Hauptman's guilt or innocence. That trial speaks to power, money, prejudice toward immigrants, tactics of government investigative agencies. That's the one that will be remembered. Nothing about it appears remotely connected to the search for justice.
36. CoralReef - Jan. 19, 1999 - 5:23 PM PT
How about (b) for bullshitting or (s) for scan this and save your time.
As for the trial of the century, how about the Nueremburg Trials? Oh wait, they weren't in the U.S. Damb. As Ryck would say, what a maroon.
37. gravel - Jan. 19, 1999 - 5:24 PM PT
re Message #35.
I forgot to mention the responsibility shown by the media during the aftermath of the Lindbergh baby's kidnapping. There are likely a few more examples of what makes this trial the real winner.
38. BoomerJeff - Jan. 19, 1999 - 5:31 PM PT
While I agree with the sentiments re Brown I think it will go down in history as the second most important trial of the century.
This impeachment trial, no matter how it ends, will change our society dramatically. The underlying principles will be debated for a long, long time.
Our country has been living with an on-going, active, moral conflict that must be resolved somehow. This impeachment trial has the effect of bringing it to the surface for debate. We are acknowledging the elephant in the house.
39. PincherMartin - Jan. 19, 1999 - 5:37 PM PT
CoralReef --
Actually, I liked the selection of the Dreyfuss Affair. The Nuremberg trials would be another good selection. But one of the reasons why I'm sure they haven't been brought up yet is that the thread's subtitle is AMERICAN trials THIS century. How about Andrew Johnson's impeachment trial? The trial of Aaron Burr? Why not bring up the trial of Christ? Take this where ever you want to take it, Coral Reef. Why do we even have to talk about trials? Lets open the floor for any discussion you see fit jackass. You lead on.
I was hoping a discussion would gather around one of the original selections. I tried to tease a response out of Eliot on the Scopes Trial, but unfortunately, he knows nothing about it, and gave only a feeble response.
So the thread is yours, CoralReef. Take it wheverever it interests you.
40. CoralReef - Jan. 19, 1999 - 5:48 PM PT
I hope you're aware that my emoticon suggestions were not in reference to your posts but to the earlier exchange over that. You're overreacting again.
41. PincherMartin - Jan. 19, 1999 - 5:53 PM PT
CoralReef --
"I hope you're aware that my emoticon suggestions were not in reference to your posts but to the earlier exchange over that. You're overreacting again."
Well, I hesitated before posting, but frankly your ambiguity invited it. And when was I ever "overreacting" before.
42. cllrdr - Jan. 19, 1999 - 7:44 PM PT
I love Boomer's notion of the impeachment as a "moral conflict."
We're going to prove that adultery is not only immoral , IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL TOO!!
43. enochsmoky - Jan. 19, 1999 - 8:27 PM PT
The recent tobacco settlement, while not a trial, may end up being a legal event which will a profound impact upon politics, lawyers and their procedures for generations. The billions of dollars in contingency fees will finance the Democratic Party for decades. When and if the general public realizes that a relative few attorneys will make millions until the 22nd century, there may be a backlash against the contigency fee system. This may finally lead to a saner and fairer tort system. It should also lead to lower attorney compensation, fewer lawyers, lower insurance premiums, and more economic freedom for the whole nation. Where are all those "kill the rich" liberal Democrats when the trial attorneys are skimming billions out of our precious Medicare funds? The silence is deafening.
44. Jonesatlaw - Jan. 19, 1999 - 9:20 PM PT
Enochysmoky- apparantly it is only justice if tobbacco company lawyers and their insurance company's attorney's make billions? Spare me please. Are we going to have to show the insurance crisis of some years ago had more to do with investment income and poor actuarial work than payment of judgements to you flat earthers again?
45. CIGARLAW - Jan. 19, 1999 - 9:25 PM PT
not a true trial, but it fits your definition in the first post, the McCarthy-Army hearings + the HUAC hearings in the 1940=50's
46. gravel - Jan. 20, 1999 - 5:01 AM PT
Message #45
Absolutely. I would've chosen that, too, if I thought the thread allowed for it.
47. wonkers2 - Jan. 20, 1999 - 7:42 AM PT
Echoes of Scopes and Brown are still alive and reverberating in our courts and being debated by school boards across the land.
48. cllrdr - Jan. 22, 1999 - 3:48 PM PT
What was the importance of the Army-McCarthy hearings to you, cigarlaw. I'm really curious.
To me they stand as the sole example of the positive use of gay-baiting.
Welch: "So who altered the picture, sir? A pixie?"
McCarthy: "What do you mean by a pixie?"
Welch: "Well a pixie is a close relative of a fairy."
49. fred1717 - Jan. 22, 1999 - 10:08 PM PT
#38 states that we are at last acknowledging hte elephant in the house. There are about 30 too many Elephants in the House. After the impeachment trial, however, I have it on good authority that the GOP will dumpt the elephant in favor of the lemming as the party mascot. Incidentally (apropos of nothing, really), I read somewhere recently a quotation by a Christian Conservative WRT the need for an official national language: "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for me." And so it is.
50. bluegirls41 - Jan. 22, 1999 - 11:14 PM PT
Respectfully, I'd like to disagree with BoomerJeff. Whereas the outcome of the Impeachment of B.C. will undoubtedly be important, whichever way it goes, in societal terms, Brown has had more wide-reaching and a greater direct effect on society, whereas the Impeachment will be felt mostly at the level of governance--perhaps effecting the Independant Counsel law for example. Perhaps it will effect, however slightly, the ways in which those in government govern, but for raw quantifiable effect, my vote's with Brown.
51. bluegirls41 - Jan. 22, 1999 - 11:22 PM PT
Respectfully, I'd like to disagree with BoomerJeff. Whereas the outcome of the Impeachment of B.C. will undoubtedly be important, whichever way it goes, in societal terms, Brown has had more wide-reaching and a greater direct effect on society, whereas the Impeachment will be felt mostly at the level of governance--perhaps effecting the Independant Counsel law for example. Perhaps it will effect, however slightly, the ways in which those in government govern, but for raw quantifiable effect, my vote's with Brown.
52. schoolmaster - Jan. 24, 1999 - 10:36 AM PT
Bill Clinton, though demeaning to his person, has contributed in a strange way in questioning the justice and constitutionality of various issues. Hope something good will come out of it.
53. concerned - Jan. 25, 1999 - 12:51 AM PT
I lean toward Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. I believe the ongoing Senate trial may eventually be seen to have significance that isn't apparent now.
OTOH, not a chance in hell for the OJ trial, since he is basically a rich guy that played the race card to get out of an open-and-shut circumstantial case.
54. gravel - Jan. 25, 1999 - 3:44 AM PT
CIGARLAW's Message #45.
The era of which Cigarlaw speaks is The Trial of the Century. When we first look back at it, we think of crime rather than trial. But this isn't unreasonable. The era consists, in part, of a series of courtroom actions. Crime comes to mind not just because of the setting, but because in these courtrooms each American finds himself on trial, without ever having committed an unlawful act.
A few Americans, during this period of time, paid dearly to protect the rights of all Americans. This was a case of America vs America. If a trial is a process, a search for truth, this trial is not over.
55. jexster - Jan. 25, 1999 - 12:14 PM PT
The Nuremburg Trials, the Stalin Show Trial of Bukharin et al..
Charles Canady: Bill Clinton is one of the most intellectually gifted and politically skillful Presidents of all time.
56. jexster - Jan. 25, 1999 - 12:20 PM PT
Could either Asa Hutchinson or Bob Barr get a job at Williams & Connolly?
57. JaDeGoLd - Jan. 25, 1999 - 12:23 PM PT
Well, if the second Mrs. Barr's affadavit is true, Boob's law practice in GA was always slow.
58. jexster - Jan. 25, 1999 - 12:48 PM PT
House Managers - Bad Lawyers
Not even very good Witch Hunters.
59. jexster - Jan. 25, 1999 - 12:49 PM PT
House Managers - Bad Lawyers
Charging multiple unrelated acts in one indictment
60. jexster - Jan. 25, 1999 - 12:50 PM PT
House Managers - Bad Lawyers
Charging multiple unrelated acts in one indictment
61. jexster - Jan. 25, 1999 - 12:54 PM PT
House Managers - Bad Lawyers
Article I so lacking in specificity that it leaves charges to the fevered imagination of BobaFett
62. jexster - Jan. 25, 1999 - 12:59 PM PT
House Managers - bad lawyers
Manager & Cracker Graham, in reasonable doubt case, says reasonable people can disagree
63. Jgeffert - Jan. 26, 1999 - 2:08 PM PT
Comparitively few of us out here have had the experience of prosecutorial misconduct perpetrated on us but just like the victims of last weeks tornadoes reporting that "you just don't know what its like until it happens to you", I feel the impeachment trial isn't worrisome to me re BC but to how the dozens of people who did no wrong are being dragged through a system that threatens all of us. I guess this would then sure be relative re: 'McCarthy" hearings. Scares me to smithereens.
64. LadyChaos - Jan. 29, 1999 - 7:07 PM PT
On an equal footing with Brown, imo, was West Virginia v. Barnette, which established that religious minorities who objected couldn't be forced to salute the flag in public schools. This case set the stage for all of the important civil rights cases of this century.
Of course, Brown, Roe, and Barnette are all Supreme Court cases and, as such, were not really trials.
As a trial, the OJ case had everything - murder, glamour, money, race, fame, sex, you name it. Great stuff. Too bad he got off, though.
65. LadyChaos - Jan. 29, 1999 - 10:37 PM PT
Re Message #38
I'm glad to see at least one foaming at the mouth right-winger acknowledge that the Clinton impeachment is really about the culture wars that began in the 60's. Refreshingly honest.