Who do YOU think was the worst Supreme Court justice in American history? Do you disagree with any of my picks? Who should have been on this list but was not? Here are my (dis)honorable mentions: Dishonorable mentions: Melville Fuller Rufus Peckham Sherman Minton Owen Roberts Samuel Chase Henry Baldwin Samuel Alito And finally, please remember that supporting the sponsor means also supporting my channel. This video was sponsored in part by Bright Cellars. For a limited time only, get your first 6-bottle box, a $150+ value, for just $55. Follow my link at brightcellars.com/beat to take the quiz and see your personalized wine matches.
Respectfully disagree with Clarence Thomas pick, not because of the obvious political stance he holds but there are other justices that should be on this list such as Fuller. Him being a sitting justice should probably keep him out of consideration until he resigns. It shows a bias to put him in here.
@lennyboot8404 would it not be biased also to exclude someone purely because of their current position? Perhaps it's an impossible position to mention him or not mention him at all
@@iammrbeatWhy? Taney had no issue with Lincoln. Also Dred Scott was legally correct. Explain how it was wrong from a constitutional basis? You should’ve included Earl Warren who destroyed the constitution
@@iammrbeat at this point, Thomas is like, comic book villain levels of corrupt, like, everytime something comes out about his billionaire buddies funding him, I both totally expect it and don't. Totally justified for him to be on here.
Not from the US, but here in Bolivia we once had a Supreme Court Justice who took his decisions and made his rulings based on reading the Bolivian equivalent of tarot cards.
Still remains insane to me that 9 people can just flagrantly change the law based on things they like that goes against any principles they demonstrate and remain in that seat for life no matter what they say or how senile they become
well technically there is a little bit of precedent for scotus impeachment. The idea is that by going through both the executive and legislative branch a pretty good candidate should get chosen, but ofc that isnt always the case
@@iammrbeat linking accountability to political bipartisanship without a multiparty system e a clear ethics laws has been the worst sabotage in the history of the USA, together with the clueless election system for the senate
Because of a string of single-term Presidents and two deaths, Roger Taney also holds the record for number of Presidents he swore into office. He was of course the only name on this list I'd even heard of, and I wasn't surprised that he was no.1.
So you renamed it from the one of the best justice to one of the worst? Marshall was a dog shit justice and literally called the constitution flawed from birth. Pure awful
Thurgood marshall was an awful justice. Taney actually read the constitution. Marshall just ignored it. He only got appointed because LBJ wanted to pander to blacks
A prominent statue of Roger B. Taney was erected in front of the Maryland Statehouse in 1872. It wasn’t removed until 2017. It was certainly about time. When I first moved to Annapolis in 1986, I remember thinking, “what the hell is THAT doing there?!”
personally i think they should have left it there but i think us as whole got to be more transparent about influenial figures instead sugar coating what they do
@@blakekaveny The opposite side of the Maryland Statehouse-called Lawyers Mall-features a grand statue of Thurgood Marshall, a civil rights leader and first African American on the Supreme Court. A wholly fitting, proper, and deserving tribute.
@@raptorfromthe6ix833 The very prominent location of Taney’s statue made it a glaring intellectual eyesore. I found it offensive and I can’t think of any logical argument to keep it there. That Mr. Beat named him as the worst justice ever gives solid justification for the statue’s removal. I don’t universally think all politically incorrect statues should be removed. Tributes to, let’s say, confederate soldiers and such are not really offensive. They were just poor grunts. On the other hand, tributes to the leading confederates and traitors to the nation like Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, or Stonewall Jackson are appropriately removed so as not to be inappropriate examples to future youth.
Maryland is a funny state. Like, I live in Richmond Va, and have basically my entire life. And Virginia has an identity crisis just due to the dynamics of the state northern Va is per capita the richest place in the the country, (Southern Maryland has the same thing, but I think more federal government stuff is in Virginia just because there is more space) but the rest of Virginia is basically small farming towns (except for Richmond and the Newport News/Va Beach area.), so you end up with this identity crisis of small town conservatism vs suburban liberalism. Maryland seems exactly like that, but like 35% of the land area, so it’s like a pressure cooker.
@@iammrbeatNo he is one of the best justices. His ruling was legally correct. How was it legally wrong. Also he didn’t oppose states rights. States didn’t have the right to block slave catchers form the federal government. Article IV Sec 2 stated the federal government had to return run away slaves.
Haven't watched it yet but I respect the move of not being afraid to add a contemporary justice, I'll watch and make my own judgment on if it was deserved or not though.
@@iammrbeatfor the Presidents, is the reason to not rank Trump's presidency because it's too recent? Or because it's too divisive right now? Or because he's running again? Or kind of a mix of all?
@@stevencaruso825 President's legacies usually don't take shape until 10-15 years afterwards, it's why we only recently begun seeing overall pictures of W. Bush (which weren't great for the record), Trump has been out of office less than 3 years and he is still very much active in national politics and could potentially become president (again) in 367 days, Trump's legacy is definitely one which will take a while to smooth out and as such we probably wont get decent rankings of Trump until at least 2040 (probably later tbh), especially with the contempt that people who tend to make the lists (college professors and the like) have for him.
@@stevencaruso825 Independent of everything else, I think Trump can probably end up in the bottom 10 for Jan 6 alone. And if the allegations he's accused of are true, and he's duly convicted in court, he should be at the very bottom, save for maybe Andrew Johnson (his legacy is far more disastrous).
to be fair, the only reeson why you only recently BEGAN seeing the overall picture of bush is that you're as ignorant as you are stupid. still, jew love to see it @@RealLooktea
I had a feeling that taney would be number one, but the stuff you said about number two made a good enough case for him to be number one Also the fact he died alone and the Justices didn't attend his funeral feels very poetic
You could actually assemble a supreme court with all of these people. There's ten of them, but none of the others would accept serving with Thomas anyway.
I think you've done a great job. I would just add a comment about Charles Whittaker, an Eisenhower appointee who served five years exactly. He was one of the few justices who was considered incompetent by almost everyone including himself. During the time he served, 1957-1962, there were several close critical cases in which he was the swing vote including Baker v. Carr, the apportionment case, which had to be held over from year to year for him to make up his mind. Finally he had a "nervous breakdown" over Baker, was hospitalized and resigned from the court.
There's a great biography of Charles Whittaker that really puts a lot of his tenure into context. It doesn't argue that he was an amazing Justice, but it does a good job showing some of the mental health problems that plagued him throughout his life (and affected his work), highlighted the work ethic he brought to both his lower court positions, but also to the Supreme Court..and how a lot of the things people knock him on didn't actually happen. Whittaker is one of those Justices who was never great, but definitely got a raw deal in how he's viewed by historians.
I applaud you for putting a sitting Justice in this video. Clarence Thomas is incredibly corrupt and a large reason why most people today feel very sour about SCOTUS. Completely agree with where you placed him.
Democrats feel sour on him, Republicans like how he rules. If he should be removed because he gets financial insentives and hides his taxes, then a majority of congress and every president since Carter should have been removed.
@@iammrbeat it's because of the letter next to his name, sadly. If he was himself or had been appointed by a Democrat, they'd be howling for his blood.
I'm glad you had the courage to put Thomas on the list here. He definitely is going to go down exactly as you said, as one of the most corrupt justices we have had, especially in modern history
Why, because he doesn't legislate your "feelings" from the bench like the left wing of the Court does? God forbid he follows the Constitution. What a travesty!
There are some justices who died or were incapacitated almost as soon as they were on the court. Then there was Rutledge, who was a recess appointment to the Supreme Court (as Chief Justice by George Washington, nonetheless) and has the distinction of being the only recess appointment not confirmed by the Senate. Essentially he inserted himself in politics over the Jay Treaty. Which was a big deal at the time.
That's an interesting list. I can't say I'm not suprised many of these justices voted for the Dred Scott decision (bless Justices McLean and Curtis for being decent, reasonable people by dissenting in that case). However I disagree about Justice Thomas. I would have put him higher on the list, and here are the things he did on the bench to justify it: 1. Voted to stop the count in Florida in the 2000 presidential election, violating the separation of the three branches of government as well as the separation between the federal government and the states, despite being a pro-states rights judge (Bush v. Gore). 2. Ruled that racial gerrymandering was unconstitutional, but refused to do the same for partisan gerrymandering (compare Shaw v. Reno to Rucho v. Common Cause). 3. Argued that the AUMF granted the president absolute power to act in the name of fighting terrorism, which the founding fathers definitely did NOT intend in any capacity (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld). 4. Argued multiple times that constitutional rights did not apply to minors, because that's what the founding fathers thought (Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.). This is especially peculiar, because Thomas had no issues granting constitutional rights to corporations, despite it no evidence that the founding fathers believed it should have been the case (Citizens United v. FEC). 5. Granted certiorari to a case that attempted to overturn the 2020 presidential election, despite petitioners clearly having no legal standing (Texas v. Pennsylvania). 6. Failed to recuse himself in a case concerning the 1/6 attack on the Captiol despite his wife, a close acquaintance of President Trump, helping organize the attack in the first place. He was the only Justice to grant certiorari to said case (Trump v. Thompson). 7. Argued that the court should consider overturning its precedents on LGBT right, same sex marriage and contraceptives (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization). Curiously, he did not mention interracial marriage, despite it and same-sex marriage relying on the same legal basis (compare Loving v. Virginia to Obergefell v. Hodges). Maybe it's because his wife, Ginni, is white? 8. In that same case, ruled that precedent could be overturned if it were "egregiously wrong", while adding no definition for what counts as such. This means, as the dissent rightly said, that the court can overturn any precedent with no further explanation. 9. Ignored evidence that clearly contradicted the majority opinion (Kennedy v. Bremerton School District). Bless Justice Sotomayor for adding said evidence, photographs of the event argued on in the case, in her dissent. 10. Vocally supported the Independent Legislature Theory, a theory that has no basis in U.S. law (which is funny considering Justice Thomaz believes originalism is the only way to interpret the consider) that claims that the state legislatures have the sole authority over federal elections. Later, when the theory was argued on at the Supreme Court (after he granted certiorari to the case), he dissented, cowardly and shamelessly arguing that there was no need to even argued there was no need to decide on tbe case, because the by that point, the lower court had already reversed the decision (Moore v. Harper). I guess he didn't want to be caught siding against democracy and stuff! -11. Ruled in favor of a case where respondents had no legal standing (303 Creative LLC v. Elenis). In this case, the court struck down a colorado law that banned discrimination against same-sex couples. The problem was that the complain that was filed to the Colorado government that started the whole case was not filed under the person listed in it. The person who "filed that complaint" turned out to be straigt, married to a woman and a father who didn't even know his name was used for the case. Therefore, there was no real injury inflicted by the petitioner, and the respondents had no reason to even file the lawsuit (perhaps the person who really filed the complaint was the petitioner herself?).- Edit: I think I was wrong about no. 11. My bias got to me on this one. You win this time, Justice Thomas.
how do you have so few upvotes? this is quite impressive. And Thomas does actually worry me. some of the conservative judges on the bench have still ruled against conservative wishes in very clear cases, but with someone like Thomas, I think he will vote for what ever his donors want.
303 had standing. There’s no gay exemption for pre-enforcement review and they had reason to believe that Colorado would enforce the law against them after the Masterpiece suit.
@@jdgarcia4767 yeah, I'm just saying that I'm not surprised he'd be willing to add a current to his "Worst" list if he was willing to add an 'almost-current' to his "Best"
I personally believe that Sandra Day O'Connor could have qualified for the Dishonorable Mentions. According to her husband and several other associates, her reasoning in _Bush v. Gore_ *allegedly* had significantly less to do with any questions regarding Constitutional precedent than with her plans to retire and refusal to allow a Democrat to nominate her replacement.
@@TimmyTheTinmanSome people could argue that with the Democrats controlling the senate for the first two years of Bush’s presidency, it would support the theory. That would be moot however since the Republicans took the Senate in 2002 and O’Connor still waited four years to retire from then. Biggest stretch for the theory would be that she retired from the court before the democrats took back Congress during the midterms though.
@@iammrbeat I'm only seeing angry comments from one account, which is less than I expected. Are there more that are getting filtered? I was pretty surprised to see you picking a sitting justice, since in previous similar videos you've said you wouldn't consider sitting officials. I guess Thomas is just too bad to ignore?
I am curious though, was any other evidence discovered to support Anita Hills accusations? Just curious, it’s seems like a he said she said situation, haven’t heard anything besides that
I found out this additional fact about Taney, he was Andew Jackson's Secretary of the Treasury when the 7th President (while Congress was in recess) ordered Federal deposits be withdrawn from the Second Bank of United States, as part of Jackson's campaign to close it down, fulfilling a major pledge of his reelection campaign in 1832. He was Jackson's third Secretary of the Treasury in a short space of time, in way similar to Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre with the Justice Department during Watergate, and it led to Jackson being Censured by Congress
Should’ve only made the list the worst 9 so we can have a definitive worst Supreme Court and then we could theorize what they might rule on important court cases past and present
@@iammrbeatI’m surprised you showed how ignorant and biased you are. What does anything you said have to do with Thomas as a justice? Nothing. Thomas upholds the constitution. That makes him great
@@night6724I am in the same page on Thomas as a great judge, but I dont think that Mr Beat is ignorant, He has his own bias and sees the world through it.
Thank you for including Clarence Thomas. All the corruption and behaviors aside, his attacks on personal freedoms and the 14th Amendment are enough to make me despise him. The fact that he would reconsider past rulings on interacial marriage, same-sex marriage, and sodomy laws (after dealing a harsh blow to women's autonomy) is simply disgusting.
I was legit worried you were going to leave out Thomas because of the tradition of not including living members/people who are still eligible for an office among some historians.
I see by the date of this video that it predates the role Thomas played in the horrendous July 2024 decision to declare that, for the first time in our country's history, it's perfectly okay for a president to commit crimes. So not only is he "one of the most corrupt justices ever to sit on the bench", as pointed out here, but also has the distinction of being one of the single most damaging people to our country's history of checks and balances.
@@1987BillyBob That was an exaggeration, but only a slight one. The decision says that a president now has immunity for criminal acts, as long as they fall within the scope of his duties. It also gives wide berth as to what constitutes the scope of his duties. For example, common sense tells us that the phone call to Raffensperger to strong-arm him into tacking on extra votes for himself was most assuredly not an official presidential duty, but the ruling throws that into question and, at the very least, will guarantee more appeals and delays in the case.
@@MickPosch He never strong armed anyone into creating votes. He said "find me more votes" That is what campaigning is. That's what Al Gore was doing when he sued for a recount?
@NICOLASLAM-xy6mn it's their fault wages have stayed stagnant in 40 years. Partly, at least. Don't aim all your anger at the politicians, save a bit for the people who bought them out: mega Corp executives. They are not just taking advantage of the situation. They are the ones keeping the situation from changing. They benefit from the poor staying poor, and thinking this isn't perfect, but its the best system we got. It isnt. I can't say for sure what would be, but this is not working. I know that for damn sure.
I knew Taney would be #1. I cannot argue with any of your choices. They are fine examples of why there should be term limits for Supreme Court justices.
the definition of substantive due process at 6:05 is COMPLETELY wrong: SDP is about rights NOT explicitly mentioned in the constitution. Scalia has some excellent interviews explaining why it's an extremely shaky doctrine and in recent years we're starting to see more and more SDP decisions overturned, with good reason
Regarding Thomas, I don't even want to think about how much he's influenced by his terrible wife... also, his life and career as a justice nothing but pure vengeance. He clearly said: "The liberals made my life miserable for 43 years, and I'm going to make their lives miserable for 43 years."
And that's exactly why I love him. Cry about it some more he's not going anywhere. Why don't you tell us the real reason you hate him is because you are a racist. Because that's exactly the reason you hate him.
I don't really mind people who advocate for states' rights, I think it's perfectly reasonable to have the opinion that a more local form of government can be more effective than the central government so should be given more of the power. However, what I don't like is that advocates of states' rights so often don't truly want states' rights in general, they just want it when it benefits them. For example, these justices who opposed states trying to choose not to return free slaves, or modern day Republicans getting upset about liberal states like California using their rights as states, which is no different from conservative states doing the same thing.
Which states rights that California uses? It's different when using states rights for something not enumerated in the us constitution vs things very clearly spelled out.
Interesting the contrast in that you can say Stephen Johnson Field is bad for staying in office with almost no brain function but on the other hand praise the current president (? Maybe, I’m not sure anyone is convinced he is really running things) for doing the exact same thing (with a much more detrimental effect on our country…).
@@iammrbeat you're at the very least a Joe Biden apologist from the videos I've seen you speak on him. I didn't expect this type of ad hominem response from you but it is what it is. I love watching your videos and can appreciate that you typically keep things pretty balanced. Any thoughts about him lying about pardoning his son?
Yeah, there are rarely people who destroyed their reputation as quick as Roger Taney. My guess is that, had he retired earlier, he would have been remembered quite positively given his role in US vs The Amistad case
that, and being the first Catholic in the Supreme Court. everyone else before him had been a Protestant of some kind. (as an aside, Catholicism is now the majority religion in the Supreme Court. not that it matters, really.)
@@night6724 Aside from the 3/5 Compromise, likely it did. Even if slaves didn't count as citizens, freed blacks were certainly intended to be citizens and were not intended to be considered a naturally submissive race unlike Taney's wacko ideas.
Right. Also who the hell asked Taney to give his destructive biased opinion on the 1820 compromise? It was not part of the case and it was certainly not the intention of the Northerners to prevent congress from limiting slavery in any new territories when they cosigned the constitution. That was nonsense.
I was sure that Clarence fucking Thomas wouldn't be on the worst list because normally sitting XYZ don't qualify for listing in Mr Beat lists. Clarence Thomas is apparently just that bad.
Great video. I'm glad you put Clarence Thomas on the list. Has there been a video about limiting the powers of the Supreme Court, i.e. Congress deciding what types of cases can be heard by them ... either proactively or reactively?
When I clicked on this video I thought to myself, “Justice Thomas certainly deserves to be on this list, but there’s no way Mr. Beat is going to call out a sitting justice.” Bravo sir.
8:35 Nope. There absolutely was no credibility to Anita Hill's accusations. It was just hoopla thrown into the air without any proof backing up her claims.
There is also no reason she would be making it up. Considering that the FBI had privately interviewed Hill about it before he was ever nominated as a justice. There’s also the fact that she had four witnesses that were never called to testify in the hearings and the fact that she passed a polygraph (although polygraphs can be unreliable).
It's always interesting what one considers "credibly accused". Matt seems to think that Thomas was credibly accused. I imagine he also believe that Kavanaugh as credibly accused. I am curious if he would talk about Biden's legacy being accused by Tara Reade
Because he actually is a pretty good justice I don't agree with every opinion he has but when I read his opinion in full you can clearly see it comes from a deep understanding and knowledge of law
@@simoncohen9323 That doesn't matter. Justice Thomas is corrupt. Even though he has a great understanding of law that doesn't mean that he shouldn't be criticised and punished for his corruption.
After watching your best and worst videos, I was wondering: could you do a video of your best and worst Congresses? Like, which ones had the best/worst Representatives and Senators and which ones did the most good/most bad for the country? Thanks for putting out so much informative content, I've learned so much from your videos.
Hey, Mr. Beat. I’m so glad you included Lewis F. Powell Jr. on your list. He is by far one of the most underrated hated people in the history books. He effectively sparked a terrible butterfly effect because of the memo he wrote that is still felt to this day resulting in… - Income inequality. - Deregulations of corporations. - Tax cuts for the rich. - Corporate welfare. - Union busting. - The Great Recession and Subprime Mortgage Crisis. - The terrible Supreme Court decisions from the 1970’s all the way to the victory of the Citizens United 2010 Supreme Court Case, practically making it so that way economic elitists and lobbyists can smother any helpful bill about to be passed into law that would be beneficial to the American public while simultaneously getting terrible laws passed that the rich want at the expense of the well being of the American public. - The overall destruction of the middle class in the United States. - The loss of the American Dream for millenials and younger generations of being able to live a happy, prosperous, and financially affordable life like the baby boomers did. - The irreparable corruption of our government. - The undoing of what the Tillman Act of 1907 was established for in order to prevent all of these things from happening in the first place. - Effectively being the final nail in the coffin for the Golden Age of Economic Expansion from the 1950’s to 1960’s starting on Monday, August 23, 1971. - And overall putting us in a new Gilded Age & Lochner Era in today’s time period. So, yeah. He deserves a spot on this list.
As they stated multiple times in her confirmation hearing. Many of those cases upwards of 70% of sentenced below the guidelines because many judges believe the guidelines are out of date because the guidelines were created before the internet.
Usually Mr. Beat is fairly evenhanded in judging people based on their era. This time I don't think he was. He considers the greatest failing of a justice as being pro-slavery in an era where 40% of the nation was pro-slavery. He seems shocked that 30 out of 116 SCOTUS justices owned slaves. That's 25.8%. It should be noted that 89 of the 248 years of the United States' existence had slavery. That's 35.8%. If you took a random sampling of 116 wealthy, white, men from all of US history, you would likely get more than 30 who owned slaves. He also seems to consider "Being pro-capitalism" and/or "Being anti-socialism" as unpardonable sins against humanity. Something about 50% of Americans today would disagree with. And finally, his gripes about Thomas were 100% about things outside the court. He didn't mention a single decision Thomas was part of that was a problem. I'm sure there are plenty he disagrees with Thomas on, but the fact that he hyper-focused on his life outside the court rather than his performance on it leads me to believe this is an emotional disdain instead of one rooted in analysis of the judiciary. Notably absent is any mention of Korematsu v. United States, which was the decision that made it legal to inter Japanese Americans during World War II. In my opinion that's far worse than Dred Scott. Dred Scott was at a time when slavery was common practice, and it basically affirmed what was the practice at the time. In other words - it didn't change the status quo, it merely codified it. Korematsu was WAY WAY later, when the US legal system had moved on from distinguishing by race (at least in the letter of the law) and they should have known better. Also, unlike Dred Scot, which affirmed the continued state of "not having rights" to Black people, Korematsu CHANGED the status quo by REMOVING the rights of Japanese-Americans. It was the only case where a demographic that had been considered full citizens up until then were "demoted" to non-rights-holders by SCOTUS fiat.
Most of your criticism are not legally based. You also seem to hold these men to modern standards. If you are aware of legal history then you are aware that the Lochner Era had all cases going for the companies BUT the workers wanted that at the time. I do agree with you about Tawny though
Hi just found the channel great video!! Could you please please make a video of the current Supreme Court Justices including information like who appointed them, which party, their ages, and their best and worst decisions. 🙏🙏🙏 There is no video on RUclips with basic information of the current justices. SORRY IF YOU ALEADY DID. Can't find it.
McReynolds also refused to speak to Louis Brandeis, a fellow Wilson appointee, because he was Jewish, and Thomas voted with the majority in Citizens United.
You're doing it to entertain and inform people like me who love to learn and are visual learners. - somebody who knows more about the world thanks to teachers like you. 👍
Typically if the individual has bad personal attributes (e.g. racist, sexist, xenophobic or corporation lover) they tend to hand out bad decisions. @@andrewjgrimm
I really respect putting a sitting justice on the list. I also wholly agree on that decision. It's cool sometimes to think that we're in a period in history that will be reflected upon, but not so much when it's for such an awful reason as corruption of the judiciary.
So Anita Hill makes an accusation, and Thomas is automatically guilty? The basic principle of our legal system, that one is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, is wasted on you I see.
My name is Kevin Reffitt, I just turned 70. It is to my great chagrin that 30 years ago My now Late Mother informed Me that Justice James Clark McReynolds is my Great Grandfather. The Supreme Court history doesn't mention he left any offspring. I remember My Grandma McReynolds, my Mother's Mother, who died in 1962. She, as His Daughter, was nothing like Her Father. As You can notice, NONE of His descendants have so far come forward to admit the truth. I've sat on it for 30 years. To Me, it's the kind of the type of "fun" designation One can only get in this life....like "last American Soldier killed in Vietnam." I mean, NO FUN at all.
I think Alito should be on that list for his Roe opinion referencing 1600's common law that also was good with burning witches in a case affecting women
@@DaDARKPass I don't know, but I would think in 150 years we would have learned something. Overturning Roe effectively pushes women more into the "property" category by not having bodily control, and forced birth. That's pretty hideous for this day and age.
@@scpatl4now You have to make a stretch to claim that overturning roe pushes women more into the "property" catagory. You don't have to make any stretches at all with Dred Scott.
My American government professor went to undergrad with Clarence Thomas. He told me that he did a complete 180 after college and he also participated in multiple protests in college
Who do YOU think was the worst Supreme Court justice in American history?
Do you disagree with any of my picks?
Who should have been on this list but was not?
Here are my (dis)honorable mentions:
Dishonorable mentions:
Melville Fuller
Rufus Peckham
Sherman Minton
Owen Roberts
Samuel Chase
Henry Baldwin
Samuel Alito
And finally, please remember that supporting the sponsor means also supporting my channel. This video was sponsored in part by Bright Cellars. For a limited time only, get your first 6-bottle box, a $150+ value, for just $55. Follow my link at brightcellars.com/beat to take the quiz and see your personalized wine matches.
Brett kavanaugh - an absolute disgrace of a human being
Nice
Wasn’t Henry Billings Brown number 10?
Respectfully disagree with Clarence Thomas pick, not because of the obvious political stance he holds but there are other justices that should be on this list such as Fuller. Him being a sitting justice should probably keep him out of consideration until he resigns. It shows a bias to put him in here.
@lennyboot8404 would it not be biased also to exclude someone purely because of their current position? Perhaps it's an impossible position to mention him or not mention him at all
Fun fact: as Chief Justice in 1861, Taney had the job of inaugurating Abraham Lincoln. That had to be pretty awkward for both of them.
lol definitely
@@iammrbeatWhy? Taney had no issue with Lincoln. Also Dred Scott was legally correct. Explain how it was wrong from a constitutional basis? You should’ve included Earl Warren who destroyed the constitution
@@iammrbeat can you do the best justices ?
@@iammrbeatTaney probably did not congratulate Lincoln after the swearing in.
I often think about this. And I'm sure Lincoln was pleased at getting to nominate Taney's successor.
Adding a sitting Justice is a bold move. I approve.
I'm sure some folks will be upset!
I feel Thomas has done enough to deserve it. He honestly was the worst from the get-go because of the allegations against him during his confirmation.
@@iammrbeat happens
@@iammrbeat at this point, Thomas is like, comic book villain levels of corrupt, like, everytime something comes out about his billionaire buddies funding him, I both totally expect it and don't. Totally justified for him to be on here.
@@iammrbeatI Knew Roger Taney was the Worst Supreme Court Justice Ever because of the Dred Scott Decision
Not from the US, but here in Bolivia we once had a Supreme Court Justice who took his decisions and made his rulings based on reading the Bolivian equivalent of tarot cards.
Cómo se llama?
@@josueaguilar6440 Gualberto Cusi. Leía hojas de coca como si fueran cartas del tarot.
Latam at its finest tbh... We can't be without the clowns lol
Dannggggg
This is REALLY funny lol
Mr Beat: personally, I don't support murder
Background crowd: awwwhhhh
Is a duel murder?
lol I have a twisted sense of humor sometimes
*+*
Eh, if two consenting adults want to duel, who are you to deny them?
Doesn’t he support abortion
Still remains insane to me that 9 people can just flagrantly change the law based on things they like that goes against any principles they demonstrate and remain in that seat for life no matter what they say or how senile they become
Even worse is that partisan gridlock in Congress makes them basically immune to any consequences.
well technically there is a little bit of precedent for scotus impeachment. The idea is that by going through both the executive and legislative branch a pretty good candidate should get chosen, but ofc that isnt always the case
Well they (supposedly) can be impeached and removed from office by Congress but ya know...
@@iammrbeat linking accountability to political bipartisanship without a multiparty system e a clear ethics laws has been the worst sabotage in the history of the USA, together with the clueless election system for the senate
Speaking of... On behalf of your viewers, I'd like to request a video on the impeachment of Justice Chase@@iammrbeat
Because of a string of single-term Presidents and two deaths, Roger Taney also holds the record for number of Presidents he swore into office. He was of course the only name on this list I'd even heard of, and I wasn't surprised that he was no.1.
You didn't know Clarence Thomas?
@@mnm1273 Ok ya caught me, yes I know about Clarence Thomas.
John Tyler and Millard Fillmore weren’t sworn in by Taney
John Roberts is trying hard to surpass him
The middle school I went to was originally name after Roger Taney. It was renamed after Thurgood Marshall
A huge improvement.
So you renamed it from the one of the best justice to one of the worst? Marshall was a dog shit justice and literally called the constitution flawed from birth. Pure awful
Thurgood marshall was an awful justice. Taney actually read the constitution. Marshall just ignored it. He only got appointed because LBJ wanted to pander to blacks
Good job, Maryland!
@@alonkatz4633 No that’s shit. Thurgood marshall was an awful justice unlike Taney. Marshall only got on because he was black
Video Idea: Ten Worst Supreme Court Decisions in US History.
Citizens United, the day the Supreme Court sold the country out to billionares.
A prominent statue of Roger B. Taney was erected in front of the Maryland Statehouse in 1872. It wasn’t removed until 2017. It was certainly about time. When I first moved to Annapolis in 1986, I remember thinking, “what the hell is THAT doing there?!”
personally i think they should have left it there but i think us as whole got to be more transparent about influenial figures instead sugar coating what they do
@@raptorfromthe6ix833They can put someone there that actually deserves like a prominent Maryland figure.
@@blakekaveny The opposite side of the Maryland Statehouse-called Lawyers Mall-features a grand statue of Thurgood Marshall, a civil rights leader and first African American on the Supreme Court. A wholly fitting, proper, and deserving tribute.
@@raptorfromthe6ix833 The very prominent location of Taney’s statue made it a glaring intellectual eyesore. I found it offensive and I can’t think of any logical argument to keep it there. That Mr. Beat named him as the worst justice ever gives solid justification for the statue’s removal.
I don’t universally think all politically incorrect statues should be removed. Tributes to, let’s say, confederate soldiers and such are not really offensive. They were just poor grunts. On the other hand, tributes to the leading confederates and traitors to the nation like Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, or Stonewall Jackson are appropriately removed so as not to be inappropriate examples to future youth.
Maryland is a funny state.
Like, I live in Richmond Va, and have basically my entire life. And Virginia has an identity crisis just due to the dynamics of the state northern Va is per capita the richest place in the the country, (Southern Maryland has the same thing, but I think more federal government stuff is in Virginia just because there is more space) but the rest of Virginia is basically small farming towns (except for Richmond and the Newport News/Va Beach area.), so you end up with this identity crisis of small town conservatism vs suburban liberalism.
Maryland seems exactly like that, but like 35% of the land area, so it’s like a pressure cooker.
The fact that none of those judges who opined that Japanese internment was okay are on this list really says something about US history
No, not really. It was just people being paranoid of spies or espionage in war.
Honestly, compared to Plessy or Dred Scott or the others, Korematsu seems to be rather mild.
Most of those justices were decent on other opinions. All of them were not slaveowners.
Truth@@NewDealChief
@@NewDealChief but they also generally did a decent job of handling some cases.
i’ve been enjoying your videos for years now and i love every second of them. thanks for all that you do ❤
Woah! Thank you so much!
I pretended to be clearance Thomas on twitter and people believed me
Wait you're not Clarence Thomas??
@@iammrbeat Jack posobaic believed me Even through I was making memes and had no check mark
@@iammrbeat, No, he's "Clearance" Thomas.
@@interstatehighwayfan_645I mean, the checkmark has no meaning anymore
BLACK PEOPLES
woooooooooo
Glad to see Taney at Number 1. That Dred Scott quote is one I use with students all the time
With a single majority opinion, he went from maybe not being in the worst 10 to THE WORST
@@iammrbeatNo he is one of the best justices. His ruling was legally correct. How was it legally wrong. Also he didn’t oppose states rights. States didn’t have the right to block slave catchers form the federal government. Article IV Sec 2 stated the federal government had to return run away slaves.
@@night6724ur terrible at baiting
@@emilianozamora399I am not baiting. Please explain why Taney was wrong constitutionally
@@night6724 that’s not the crux of the case nor the far reaching consequences of it
Haven't watched it yet but I respect the move of not being afraid to add a contemporary justice, I'll watch and make my own judgment on if it was deserved or not though.
The revelations these past years made a big difference. And thank you!
@@iammrbeatfor the Presidents, is the reason to not rank Trump's presidency because it's too recent? Or because it's too divisive right now? Or because he's running again? Or kind of a mix of all?
@@stevencaruso825 President's legacies usually don't take shape until 10-15 years afterwards, it's why we only recently begun seeing overall pictures of W. Bush (which weren't great for the record), Trump has been out of office less than 3 years and he is still very much active in national politics and could potentially become president (again) in 367 days, Trump's legacy is definitely one which will take a while to smooth out and as such we probably wont get decent rankings of Trump until at least 2040 (probably later tbh), especially with the contempt that people who tend to make the lists (college professors and the like) have for him.
@@stevencaruso825 Independent of everything else, I think Trump can probably end up in the bottom 10 for Jan 6 alone. And if the allegations he's accused of are true, and he's duly convicted in court, he should be at the very bottom, save for maybe Andrew Johnson (his legacy is far more disastrous).
to be fair, the only reeson why you only recently BEGAN seeing the overall picture of bush is that you're as ignorant as you are stupid. still, jew love to see it @@RealLooktea
I had a feeling that taney would be number one, but the stuff you said about number two made a good enough case for him to be number one
Also the fact he died alone and the Justices didn't attend his funeral feels very poetic
So poetic indeed!
It was gonna be Taney or McReynolds...
Taney wrote the most horrific opinion in Supreme Court history.
McReynolds was... umm... McReynolds
@@f1fan112 McReynolds may have been the least liked of all the supreme court justices by his colleagues.
@sydhenderson6753 McReynolds was so comically bad, that he legit skipped half the stories about how bad McReynolds was.
You could actually assemble a supreme court with all of these people. There's ten of them, but none of the others would accept serving with Thomas anyway.
I think you've done a great job. I would just add a comment about Charles Whittaker, an Eisenhower appointee who served five years exactly. He was one of the few justices who was considered incompetent by almost everyone including himself. During the time he served, 1957-1962, there were several close critical cases in which he was the swing vote including Baker v. Carr, the apportionment case, which had to be held over from year to year for him to make up his mind. Finally he had a "nervous breakdown" over Baker, was hospitalized and resigned from the court.
There's a great biography of Charles Whittaker that really puts a lot of his tenure into context. It doesn't argue that he was an amazing Justice, but it does a good job showing some of the mental health problems that plagued him throughout his life (and affected his work), highlighted the work ethic he brought to both his lower court positions, but also to the Supreme Court..and how a lot of the things people knock him on didn't actually happen. Whittaker is one of those Justices who was never great, but definitely got a raw deal in how he's viewed by historians.
I applaud you for putting a sitting Justice in this video. Clarence Thomas is incredibly corrupt and a large reason why most people today feel very sour about SCOTUS. Completely agree with where you placed him.
Thank you. It's sad that the Republican majority in the House won't even consider impeaching him
@@iammrbeat They'd rather try impeaching Biden by persecuting his son, who has nothing to do with the current Administration.
@@iammrbeatreally goes to show how much the GOP has been hijacked by Machiavellianism extremism
Democrats feel sour on him, Republicans like how he rules. If he should be removed because he gets financial insentives and hides his taxes, then a majority of congress and every president since Carter should have been removed.
@@iammrbeat it's because of the letter next to his name, sadly. If he was himself or had been appointed by a Democrat, they'd be howling for his blood.
Congratulations on the 2 billion view video with 5 academy awards nominations Mr Beat! Keep it up!
Haha thanks 😊
I'm glad you had the courage to put Thomas on the list here. He definitely is going to go down exactly as you said, as one of the most corrupt justices we have had, especially in modern history
Why, because he doesn't legislate your "feelings" from the bench like the left wing of the Court does? God forbid he follows the Constitution. What a travesty!
i was thinking that if Thomas was on the list he’d be 10-8, was (pleasantly) surprised to see him come even later.
I surprised myself, honestly
You should do the top 10 mediocre justices.
*+*
There are some justices who died or were incapacitated almost as soon as they were on the court. Then there was Rutledge, who was a recess appointment to the Supreme Court (as Chief Justice by George Washington, nonetheless) and has the distinction of being the only recess appointment not confirmed by the Senate. Essentially he inserted himself in politics over the Jay Treaty. Which was a big deal at the time.
"Top 10 Justices who filled a seat"
There are too many mediocre SC Justices to form a meaningful list. On the other hand, I REALLY applaud the thought!!!
The "Middle Ten"
That's an interesting list. I can't say I'm not suprised many of these justices voted for the Dred Scott decision (bless Justices McLean and Curtis for being decent, reasonable people by dissenting in that case). However I disagree about Justice Thomas. I would have put him higher on the list, and here are the things he did on the bench to justify it:
1. Voted to stop the count in Florida in the 2000 presidential election, violating the separation of the three branches of government as well as the separation between the federal government and the states, despite being a pro-states rights judge (Bush v. Gore).
2. Ruled that racial gerrymandering was unconstitutional, but refused to do the same for partisan gerrymandering (compare Shaw v. Reno to Rucho v. Common Cause).
3. Argued that the AUMF granted the president absolute power to act in the name of fighting terrorism, which the founding fathers definitely did NOT intend in any capacity (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld).
4. Argued multiple times that constitutional rights did not apply to minors, because that's what the founding fathers thought (Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.). This is especially peculiar, because Thomas had no issues granting constitutional rights to corporations, despite it no evidence that the founding fathers believed it should have been the case (Citizens United v. FEC).
5. Granted certiorari to a case that attempted to overturn the 2020 presidential election, despite petitioners clearly having no legal standing (Texas v. Pennsylvania).
6. Failed to recuse himself in a case concerning the 1/6 attack on the Captiol despite his wife, a close acquaintance of President Trump, helping organize the attack in the first place. He was the only Justice to grant certiorari to said case (Trump v. Thompson).
7. Argued that the court should consider overturning its precedents on LGBT right, same sex marriage and contraceptives (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization). Curiously, he did not mention interracial marriage, despite it and same-sex marriage relying on the same legal basis (compare Loving v. Virginia to Obergefell v. Hodges). Maybe it's because his wife, Ginni, is white?
8. In that same case, ruled that precedent could be overturned if it were "egregiously wrong", while adding no definition for what counts as such. This means, as the dissent rightly said, that the court can overturn any precedent with no further explanation.
9. Ignored evidence that clearly contradicted the majority opinion (Kennedy v. Bremerton School District). Bless Justice Sotomayor for adding said evidence, photographs of the event argued on in the case, in her dissent.
10. Vocally supported the Independent Legislature Theory, a theory that has no basis in U.S. law (which is funny considering Justice Thomaz believes originalism is the only way to interpret the consider) that claims that the state legislatures have the sole authority over federal elections. Later, when the theory was argued on at the Supreme Court (after he granted certiorari to the case), he dissented, cowardly and shamelessly arguing that there was no need to even argued there was no need to decide on tbe case, because the by that point, the lower court had already reversed the decision (Moore v. Harper). I guess he didn't want to be caught siding against democracy and stuff!
-11. Ruled in favor of a case where respondents had no legal standing (303 Creative LLC v. Elenis). In this case, the court struck down a colorado law that banned discrimination against same-sex couples. The problem was that the complain that was filed to the Colorado government that started the whole case was not filed under the person listed in it. The person who "filed that complaint" turned out to be straigt, married to a woman and a father who didn't even know his name was used for the case. Therefore, there was no real injury inflicted by the petitioner, and the respondents had no reason to even file the lawsuit (perhaps the person who really filed the complaint was the petitioner herself?).-
Edit: I think I was wrong about no. 11. My bias got to me on this one. You win this time, Justice Thomas.
Holy dang that was thorough. I agree with just about all of your concerns.
Jesus H. Tap-dancing Christ. I knew he was bad, but not THIS bad.
How is partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional? Racial clearly is, violating the 14th amendment and it also violates the civil rights act.
how do you have so few upvotes? this is quite impressive. And Thomas does actually worry me. some of the conservative judges on the bench have still ruled against conservative wishes in very clear cases, but with someone like Thomas, I think he will vote for what ever his donors want.
303 had standing. There’s no gay exemption for pre-enforcement review and they had reason to believe that Colorado would enforce the law against them after the Masterpiece suit.
Mr Beat usually stays away from modern politicians/justices etc. him putting Thomas on this list speaks volumes imo. Respect.
I wasn't expecting you to add a sitting justice on the court, that took some guts man😅.
Well, he added Scalia to his "best" list, and he had only passed away maybe 5 years before he made that video.
@@NakAlienEd I know that one but thomas is still on so that is now.
@@jdgarcia4767 yeah, I'm just saying that I'm not surprised he'd be willing to add a current to his "Worst" list if he was willing to add an 'almost-current' to his "Best"
@@NakAlienEd yeah ok
@@jdgarcia4767 I do agree that it takes guts to add a current to the list
I personally believe that Sandra Day O'Connor could have qualified for the Dishonorable Mentions. According to her husband and several other associates, her reasoning in _Bush v. Gore_ *allegedly* had significantly less to do with any questions regarding Constitutional precedent than with her plans to retire and refusal to allow a Democrat to nominate her replacement.
i believe that was nothing more than a rumor
I would believe this but why did she wait six years to retire after the election and another one
@@TimmyTheTinmanSome people could argue that with the Democrats controlling the senate for the first two years of Bush’s presidency, it would support the theory. That would be moot however since the Republicans took the Senate in 2002 and O’Connor still waited four years to retire from then.
Biggest stretch for the theory would be that she retired from the court before the democrats took back Congress during the midterms though.
Hey Mr. Beat! I have your book but haven't started yet. Thank you for consistently making some of the best content on RUclips!
Well thanks for the kind words and for getting the book!
in the case of Thomas it was a slam dunk! Thomas is not only not qualified, but corrupt!
Was it really a shock that Clarence Thomas was on the list? Nope!
I'm still upsetting some folks, though
@@iammrbeat I'm only seeing angry comments from one account, which is less than I expected. Are there more that are getting filtered? I was pretty surprised to see you picking a sitting justice, since in previous similar videos you've said you wouldn't consider sitting officials. I guess Thomas is just too bad to ignore?
A well deserved entry
I am curious though, was any other evidence discovered to support Anita Hills accusations? Just curious, it’s seems like a he said she said situation, haven’t heard anything besides that
Racist.
McReynolds is basically Mr. Potter if he was a Supreme Court Justice.
How fitting that Wilson appointed him.
I never thought of that but, by golly, you're right!
I found out this additional fact about Taney, he was Andew Jackson's Secretary of the Treasury when the 7th President (while Congress was in recess) ordered Federal deposits be withdrawn from the Second Bank of United States, as part of Jackson's campaign to close it down, fulfilling a major pledge of his reelection campaign in 1832. He was Jackson's third Secretary of the Treasury in a short space of time, in way similar to Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre with the Justice Department during Watergate, and it led to Jackson being Censured by Congress
Should’ve only made the list the worst 9 so we can have a definitive worst Supreme Court and then we could theorize what they might rule on important court cases past and present
Proud of you for having the guts to include Thomas.
Heh, I'm used to the flak
Shhhhh stop spoiling ):
@@iammrbeatI’m surprised you showed how ignorant and biased you are. What does anything you said have to do with Thomas as a justice? Nothing. Thomas upholds the constitution. That makes him great
@@night6724 so butthurt :)))
@@night6724I am in the same page on Thomas as a great judge, but I dont think that Mr Beat is ignorant, He has his own bias and sees the world through it.
Thank you for including Clarence Thomas. All the corruption and behaviors aside, his attacks on personal freedoms and the 14th Amendment are enough to make me despise him. The fact that he would reconsider past rulings on interacial marriage, same-sex marriage, and sodomy laws (after dealing a harsh blow to women's autonomy) is simply disgusting.
I was legit worried you were going to leave out Thomas because of the tradition of not including living members/people who are still eligible for an office among some historians.
I see by the date of this video that it predates the role Thomas played in the horrendous July 2024 decision to declare that, for the first time in our country's history, it's perfectly okay for a president to commit crimes. So not only is he "one of the most corrupt justices ever to sit on the bench", as pointed out here, but also has the distinction of being one of the single most damaging people to our country's history of checks and balances.
That wasn't the decision. It doesn't say a president can commit crime.
@@1987BillyBob That was an exaggeration, but only a slight one. The decision says that a president now has immunity for criminal acts, as long as they fall within the scope of his duties. It also gives wide berth as to what constitutes the scope of his duties. For example, common sense tells us that the phone call to Raffensperger to strong-arm him into tacking on extra votes for himself was most assuredly not an official presidential duty, but the ruling throws that into question and, at the very least, will guarantee more appeals and delays in the case.
It was not a bad ruling as long as the civil immunity ruling stands.
You need to get rid of the Civil immunity first.
@@MickPosch He never strong armed anyone into creating votes. He said "find me more votes" That is what campaigning is. That's what Al Gore was doing when he sued for a recount?
Clarence Thomas, the one part of black history we refuse to celebrate. It's insane this man was picked to replace Thurgood Marshall.
That’s the worst part about this, really. One final FU from the Reagan Republicans to the people whose lives they destroyed.
@@diegovasquez840 How so?
@NICOLASLAM-xy6mn it's their fault wages have stayed stagnant in 40 years. Partly, at least. Don't aim all your anger at the politicians, save a bit for the people who bought them out: mega Corp executives. They are not just taking advantage of the situation. They are the ones keeping the situation from changing. They benefit from the poor staying poor, and thinking this isn't perfect, but its the best system we got. It isnt. I can't say for sure what would be, but this is not working. I know that for damn sure.
Thurgood Marshall was an awful justice. Thomas was good. Marshall was corrupt because he ignored the constitution and kowtowed to lbj
@@diegovasquez840Nope. Marshall was dog shit and only appointed because he was black
I knew Taney would be #1. I cannot argue with any of your choices. They are fine examples of why there should be term limits for Supreme Court justices.
Thank you for the truth
To be honest, I thought McReynolds might give Taney a run for his money.
the definition of substantive due process at 6:05 is COMPLETELY wrong: SDP is about rights NOT explicitly mentioned in the constitution. Scalia has some excellent interviews explaining why it's an extremely shaky doctrine and in recent years we're starting to see more and more SDP decisions overturned, with good reason
Regarding Thomas, I don't even want to think about how much he's influenced by his terrible wife... also, his life and career as a justice nothing but pure vengeance. He clearly said: "The liberals made my life miserable for 43 years, and I'm going to make their lives miserable for 43 years."
And that's exactly why I love him. Cry about it some more he's not going anywhere. Why don't you tell us the real reason you hate him is because you are a racist. Because that's exactly the reason you hate him.
You know it's bad when Mr. Beat attacks an incumbent 💀
I don't really mind people who advocate for states' rights, I think it's perfectly reasonable to have the opinion that a more local form of government can be more effective than the central government so should be given more of the power. However, what I don't like is that advocates of states' rights so often don't truly want states' rights in general, they just want it when it benefits them. For example, these justices who opposed states trying to choose not to return free slaves, or modern day Republicans getting upset about liberal states like California using their rights as states, which is no different from conservative states doing the same thing.
Which states rights that California uses? It's different when using states rights for something not enumerated in the us constitution vs things very clearly spelled out.
You really should do a briefs on Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council
This is a great idea
Absolutely, it will be a great day for all Americans when Chveron is overturned. Fingers crossed that Gorsuch writes the majority opinion!
Im surprised you didn't mention that Clarence Thomas' family used to be owned by Strom Thurmond's family.
And he rules like he was still owned by the head of a plantation.
Interesting the contrast in that you can say Stephen Johnson Field is bad for staying in office with almost no brain function but on the other hand praise the current president (? Maybe, I’m not sure anyone is convinced he is really running things) for doing the exact same thing (with a much more detrimental effect on our country…).
When did I praise the current president? Goodness some of y'all are delusional.
@@iammrbeat you're at the very least a Joe Biden apologist from the videos I've seen you speak on him. I didn't expect this type of ad hominem response from you but it is what it is. I love watching your videos and can appreciate that you typically keep things pretty balanced. Any thoughts about him lying about pardoning his son?
Yeah, there are rarely people who destroyed their reputation as quick as Roger Taney. My guess is that, had he retired earlier, he would have been remembered quite positively given his role in US vs The Amistad case
that, and being the first Catholic in the Supreme Court. everyone else before him had been a Protestant of some kind.
(as an aside, Catholicism is now the majority religion in the Supreme Court. not that it matters, really.)
Taney didn’t destroy his reputation. He made the correct decision. You think the constitution intended slaves as citizens?
@@rin_etoware_2989And the Presidency. Joe Biden is the 2nd Catholic POTUS in US history...
@@night6724 Aside from the 3/5 Compromise, likely it did.
Even if slaves didn't count as citizens, freed blacks were certainly intended to be citizens and were not intended to be considered a naturally submissive race unlike Taney's wacko ideas.
Right. Also who the hell asked Taney to give his destructive biased opinion on the 1820 compromise? It was not part of the case and it was certainly not the intention of the Northerners to prevent congress from limiting slavery in any new territories when they cosigned the constitution. That was nonsense.
With your wine-coloured sweater, I can't shake the feeling your whole video is a wine ad.
i really wish that i knew more about this history of the supreme court. thanks for keeping up with the content.
Thanks for watching it!
Before I even clicked on the video I knew justice James Clark McReynolds was going to be in it.
It's hard to like that dude
Don’t disagree at all, EXCEPT:
Apple is not the worst corporation in the world. If fact I could probably name at least a hundred that are worse.
While I’m sure that’s true, they’re arguably one of the largest and most widely recognized examples of a corporation.
I was sure that Clarence fucking Thomas wouldn't be on the worst list because normally sitting XYZ don't qualify for listing in Mr Beat lists. Clarence Thomas is apparently just that bad.
Great video. I'm glad you put Clarence Thomas on the list.
Has there been a video about limiting the powers of the Supreme Court, i.e. Congress deciding what types of cases can be heard by them ... either proactively or reactively?
You somehow make even sponsorships feel down to earth. You have a gift for presentation and I love your genuine drive to teach people stuff.
Good for you for adding Thomas.
I love your videos and I love how you're always unbiased on your stuff (expect videos like this haha)
When I clicked on this video I thought to myself, “Justice Thomas certainly deserves to be on this list, but there’s no way Mr. Beat is going to call out a sitting justice.” Bravo sir.
1:33 Judging justices, I’m lmao at that pun
honestly thanks for going after thomas for taking money instead of going on a rant over his opinions
Mr. Beat never fails to make me edge on my seat!
0:28 because you hate yourself?
Nothing quite like a new Mr. Beat video, always a welcome part of my day
I appreciate the encouraging words!
8:35
Nope. There absolutely was no credibility to Anita Hill's accusations. It was just hoopla thrown into the air without any proof backing up her claims.
There is also no reason she would be making it up. Considering that the FBI had privately interviewed Hill about it before he was ever nominated as a justice. There’s also the fact that she had four witnesses that were never called to testify in the hearings and the fact that she passed a polygraph (although polygraphs can be unreliable).
Channeling Chris Hansen telling us to take a seat over there 😅
I don't know who that is actually.
I love the humor in your videos. Always cracks me up
Thanks again Mr Beat. Keep up your good work!
It's always interesting what one considers "credibly accused". Matt seems to think that Thomas was credibly accused. I imagine he also believe that Kavanaugh as credibly accused. I am curious if he would talk about Biden's legacy being accused by Tara Reade
It’s hard to say if it was credible or not if we didn’t even have a proper investigation into either one.
Four witnesses seems credible
Numerous witnesses is pretty damn credible, plus that’s not even the reason he made it on the list, he made it on the list because he’s corrupt
Clarence Thomas is absolutely terrible. How that man is still on the court is shocking
He definitely needs to be impeached
@@Pyxleanhell let republicans choose the justice I'd take any other conservative justice over him
Appointed for life. God bless America... 💀
Because he actually is a pretty good justice I don't agree with every opinion he has but when I read his opinion in full you can clearly see it comes from a deep understanding and knowledge of law
@@simoncohen9323 That doesn't matter. Justice Thomas is corrupt. Even though he has a great understanding of law that doesn't mean that he shouldn't be criticised and punished for his corruption.
That opening was so Charming I love these videos!
Well thank you :)
After watching your best and worst videos, I was wondering: could you do a video of your best and worst Congresses? Like, which ones had the best/worst Representatives and Senators and which ones did the most good/most bad for the country? Thanks for putting out so much informative content, I've learned so much from your videos.
Hey, Mr. Beat. I’m so glad you included Lewis F. Powell Jr. on your list. He is by far one of the most underrated hated people in the history books. He effectively sparked a terrible butterfly effect because of the memo he wrote that is still felt to this day resulting in…
- Income inequality.
- Deregulations of corporations.
- Tax cuts for the rich.
- Corporate welfare.
- Union busting.
- The Great Recession and Subprime Mortgage Crisis.
- The terrible Supreme Court decisions from the 1970’s all the way to the victory of the Citizens United 2010 Supreme Court Case, practically making it so that way economic elitists and lobbyists can smother any helpful bill about to be passed into law that would be beneficial to the American public while simultaneously getting terrible laws passed that the rich want at the expense of the well being of the American public.
- The overall destruction of the middle class in the United States.
- The loss of the American Dream for millenials and younger generations of being able to live a happy, prosperous, and financially affordable life like the baby boomers did.
- The irreparable corruption of our government.
- The undoing of what the Tillman Act of 1907 was established for in order to prevent all of these things from happening in the first place.
- Effectively being the final nail in the coffin for the Golden Age of Economic Expansion from the 1950’s to 1960’s starting on Monday, August 23, 1971.
- And overall putting us in a new Gilded Age & Lochner Era in today’s time period.
So, yeah. He deserves a spot on this list.
The point where you mention that Stephen Johnson Field was racist, you can clearly see Henry Billings Brown standing right behind him. Fitting.
I feel like Ketanji Brown Jackson might make the list someday, she already gave lenient sentences to pedophiles.
Thats completely made up by ted cruz. She gave sentences within the federal guidelines
As they stated multiple times in her confirmation hearing. Many of those cases upwards of 70% of sentenced below the guidelines because many judges believe the guidelines are out of date because the guidelines were created before the internet.
Usually Mr. Beat is fairly evenhanded in judging people based on their era. This time I don't think he was. He considers the greatest failing of a justice as being pro-slavery in an era where 40% of the nation was pro-slavery. He seems shocked that 30 out of 116 SCOTUS justices owned slaves. That's 25.8%. It should be noted that 89 of the 248 years of the United States' existence had slavery. That's 35.8%. If you took a random sampling of 116 wealthy, white, men from all of US history, you would likely get more than 30 who owned slaves.
He also seems to consider "Being pro-capitalism" and/or "Being anti-socialism" as unpardonable sins against humanity. Something about 50% of Americans today would disagree with.
And finally, his gripes about Thomas were 100% about things outside the court. He didn't mention a single decision Thomas was part of that was a problem. I'm sure there are plenty he disagrees with Thomas on, but the fact that he hyper-focused on his life outside the court rather than his performance on it leads me to believe this is an emotional disdain instead of one rooted in analysis of the judiciary.
Notably absent is any mention of Korematsu v. United States, which was the decision that made it legal to inter Japanese Americans during World War II. In my opinion that's far worse than Dred Scott. Dred Scott was at a time when slavery was common practice, and it basically affirmed what was the practice at the time. In other words - it didn't change the status quo, it merely codified it.
Korematsu was WAY WAY later, when the US legal system had moved on from distinguishing by race (at least in the letter of the law) and they should have known better. Also, unlike Dred Scot, which affirmed the continued state of "not having rights" to Black people, Korematsu CHANGED the status quo by REMOVING the rights of Japanese-Americans. It was the only case where a demographic that had been considered full citizens up until then were "demoted" to non-rights-holders by SCOTUS fiat.
Yeah, he's a huge leftist and his research and thoughts come from that barrow bubble.
Most of your criticism are not legally based. You also seem to hold these men to modern standards. If you are aware of legal history then you are aware that the Lochner Era had all cases going for the companies BUT the workers wanted that at the time. I do agree with you about Tawny though
Great list! I request top 10 Secretary of States. The cabnit isn't talked about as much as they should. And State is a good place to start.
Hi just found the channel great video!!
Could you please please make a video of the current Supreme Court Justices including information like who appointed them, which party, their ages, and their best and worst decisions. 🙏🙏🙏
There is no video on RUclips with basic information of the current justices.
SORRY IF YOU ALEADY DID. Can't find it.
Gotta wonder if this is due for updating.
McReynolds also refused to speak to Louis Brandeis, a fellow Wilson appointee, because he was Jewish, and Thomas voted with the majority in Citizens United.
You're doing it to entertain and inform people like me who love to learn and are visual learners. - somebody who knows more about the world thanks to teachers like you. 👍
I’m not sure if you’ve done this yet, but you should do the top 10 worst Supreme Court decisions, Mr Beat. Also give me money
Yes. A lot of these individuals were listed for bad decisions, not for bad reasoning or bad personal attributes.
I've been planning on it for awhile...perhaps later this year?
Typically if the individual has bad personal attributes (e.g. racist, sexist, xenophobic or corporation lover) they tend to hand out bad decisions. @@andrewjgrimm
30% of these people were nominated by Andrew Jackson.
Looks they should be called supreme court INjustices!
I’ve been waiting for this one for quite some time!
New update: tied for one, all 6 justices who decided that the president had criminal immunity
Haven't watched yet but will say TANEY!!
I knew y'all would predict it
good choice and Taney is certainly on my list but any SCOTUS that votes for POTUS immunity should be at the top of the list!
this early to a mr beat video is kinda nice
Thanks for being here early
I really respect putting a sitting justice on the list. I also wholly agree on that decision. It's cool sometimes to think that we're in a period in history that will be reflected upon, but not so much when it's for such an awful reason as corruption of the judiciary.
I have to learn more about Justice McReynolds. He seems really diabolical.
I love these videos Mr. Beat. Keep up the good work. It's informative, entertaining and unique. Congratulations.
No Abe Fortas, even on the dishonorable mention list??
Forgotten
You know you’re bad when Mr. Beat evaluates you WHILE you’re still in office
So Anita Hill makes an accusation, and Thomas is automatically guilty? The basic principle of our legal system, that one is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, is wasted on you I see.
Another example of why Mr. Beat is Mr. Based.
You should now do a top 10 most mediocre supreme court justices
My name is Kevin Reffitt, I just turned 70. It is to my great chagrin that 30 years ago My now Late Mother informed Me that Justice James Clark McReynolds is my Great Grandfather. The Supreme Court history doesn't mention he left any offspring. I remember My Grandma McReynolds, my Mother's Mother, who died in 1962. She, as His Daughter, was nothing like Her Father. As You can notice, NONE of His descendants have so far come forward to admit the truth. I've sat on it for 30 years. To Me, it's the kind of the type of "fun" designation One can only get in this life....like "last American Soldier killed in Vietnam." I mean, NO FUN at all.
You knew Thomas would make the list but I can't imagine Alito not making it. The 9 Justices that beat Alito must have been something to behold.
I think Alito should be on that list for his Roe opinion referencing 1600's common law that also was good with burning witches in a case affecting women
Alito sucks, but his desicions are still not as harmful as anyone who sided with the majority opinion on Dred Scott.
@@DaDARKPass I don't know, but I would think in 150 years we would have learned something. Overturning Roe effectively pushes women more into the "property" category by not having bodily control, and forced birth. That's pretty hideous for this day and age.
@@scpatl4now You have to make a stretch to claim that overturning roe pushes women more into the "property" catagory. You don't have to make any stretches at all with Dred Scott.
Yeah Alito is pretty bad as well
I haven't watched the video, but I'm going to guess Clarence Thomas will wind up here for his blatant corruption.
I think this may need to get updated after what just happened
My American government professor went to undergrad with Clarence Thomas. He told me that he did a complete 180 after college and he also participated in multiple protests in college
Great Video, as usual, Mr. Beat. As a Semi-Retired Lawyer, but, still practicing, I'm interested in this.
Wish Mr. Beat was my teacher in highschool ❤.