Roe vs. Wade? Bush vs. Gore? What are the worst Supreme Court decisions?

Reported from Washington — Gov. Sarah Palin appeared to draw a blank recently when asked by CBS' Katie Couric to name a Supreme Court decision she disagreed with other than Roe vs. Wade.

Recalling high school history, she might have cited widely condemned 19th century decisions such as Dred Scott (1857), which upheld slavery even in the "free states," and Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896), which upheld segregation as "separate but equal."

Or relying on personal experience, she might have repeated her criticism of the court's ruling in June that reduced by $2 billion the punitive damages to be paid to Alaskans by Exxon Mobil for the Exxon Valdez oil spill. She was quoted then as saying she was "extremely disappointed" the court had "gutted the jury's decision on punitive damages."

But Palin, who is not a lawyer, is surely not alone in being unable to name high court decisions she disagrees with. What are the worst Supreme Court decisions of recent decades?

When asked in the last week, professors of constitutional law and other court experts offered a wide array of rulings. However, conservatives and liberals agree -- at least among themselves -- on the worst decision.

For conservatives, Roe vs. Wade (1973) stands alone. The court, in a 7-2 decision, cited an unwritten "privacy" right in the Constitution as the basis for voiding the abortion laws then on the books in 46 of the 50 states.

John Eastman, dean of the Chapman University School of Law in Orange, said Roe combined "outcome-driven reasoning and bad history with a lack of judicial authority to enter an inherently political question that had previously been left to the states."

Bush vs. Gore (2000) has the same standing among liberals. The court's conservative bloc, in a 5-4 decision, halted the recount of punch-card ballots in Florida on the theory that it could violate then-Gov. George W. Bush's right to the "equal protection of the laws." Until then, the court's conservatives had been most skeptical of "equal protection" claims, unless racial distinctions were at issue.

UC Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu described the decision as "utterly lacking in any legal principle" and added that the court was "remarkably unashamed to say so explicitly." Its opinion noted that the ruling was "limited to the present circumstances."

Among conservative law scholars, other rulings earned several mentions as the "worst" of recent times: