separate but not equal

Oh hi, I'm still crazy. (Actually, no; much wailing and much being fed junk food by lovely boy has helped, and now I'm depressed and knackered but no longer actively considering throwing self in front of bus.)

Anyway, that's not the point. Via thistlerose, Sarah Palin apparently can't name any Supreme Court decision other than Roe v Wade. The meme: post any Supreme Court decision, modern or historic, to your LJ. After six straight hours of baby law school today, I feel honour-bound to respond to this.

So, I give you a classic: Brown v Topeka State Board of Education, which established that seperate does not mean equal and ended racial segregation in schools. I can't name many others - Loving v Virginia comes to mind - but I have to say, English law is much better for this sort of thing, in that the cases that are used every day to set binding precedents are astonishingly, delightfully old. Yesterday I looked up Payne v Cave (1789), which establishes that you may withdraw your bid in an auction at any time before the hammer falls; Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball (1893), wich establishes that you may, if you are sufficiently stupid, accidentally make a unilateral contract with the entire world; Donaghue v Stevenson (1929), of which the substance is immaterial: all you need to know is it involved decomposing slugs in beer.

Have I mentioned I really like the law? I really like the law. Other strange thing I have learned today: consent is not a defence to actual bodily harm. Also, a sin of ommission is not a crime. Which means I could have consensual kinky sex with someone, and be prosecuted, and watch a child drown, and not. Huh.

In other news, Dar Williams' new album is made of perfect. (Have two songs: Buzzer; Midnight Radio.)

Anyway. I return to land law and crazy. Hope you're all having a nice Thursday.