How would you have ruled in the preceding case?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Hi there! Since we have so many "preceding" games, I thought it would be fun to have one about court cases too!

The rules are obvious. You post a SCOTUS case, the preceding posters says what he would have decided and then posts another case. You can say you agree with the majority opinion, the dissent, any other kind of opinion issued by a Justice, or you can develop your own rationale. In any case, feel free to go to as much lengths as you want to explain your ruling.

Let's start with Roe v. Wade.

[politicallefty]

I would have supported Roe, but not the reasoning of the majority. I would have set the hard line of state regulations at viability (i.e. no laws regulating abortion prior to viability).

Roper v. Simmons

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I would have supported the minority.  Both the "evolving standards of decency" test and the  "national consensus" test are judicial activism of the highest order as it places the court in the position deciding what the law should be rather than its proper function of deciding what the law is. I view the cruel and unusual punishments clause as primarily a restraint on the judicial branch in handing out sentences, not generally as a restraint on the legislative branch in deciding what punishments should be.

Bush v. Gore

[JerryArkansas]

Same as the court did

New Jersey v. T.L.O.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'd side with the majority. The search in these circumstances was reasonable and justified.

On the other hand, I would not subscribe to Powell's concurrence. While I agree that students in a school are not afforded all the constitutional rights that apply to adults in the public space, I do think that they are afforded the same rights if the possibility of a criminal conviction is involved. Going to school should not increase your likelihood to be caught for whatever unlawful action you have committed.

Virginia v. Black

[Supersonic]

I would have sided with the majority verdict of O'Conner "that Virginia's statute against cross burning is unconstitutional, but cross burning done with an attempt to intimidate can be limited because such expression has a long and pernicious history as a signal of impending violence".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co._v._Sawyer

[Likely Voter]

With the dissent

Engel v Vitale

[Oldiesfreak1854]

While I am a very religious person, probably with the majority.  However, I could see myself dissenting.

Ricci v. DeStefano

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Dissenting with Stewart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branzburg_v._Hayes

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Concur, tho I think Congress could choose to create a reportorial privilege.

Nix v. Hedden

[JerryArkansas]

Dissenting

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Not with the Court (it was unanimous IIRC). Tomatoes are a vegetable!

I Am The Beast, etc. v. Michigan State Police

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Dammit! Ninja'd. I'd rule with the majority in Jerry's.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I could only find something about it on Wikisource, and from what I understand the case was dismissed on procedural grounds. I guess I'll defer to the Court.

Brandenburg v. Ohio

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

With the (unanimous) court.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

With the majority.  While I favor giving the legislative branch broad authority on the topic of abortion, the one Pennsylvania restriction they struck down, requiring married women to obtain the consent of their husbands to obtain an otherwise legal abortion, deserved to be struck.

South Carolina v. Baker

[Torie]

I glanced at the case and strongly concur, particularly inasmuch as the federal statute only required the registration of municipal bonds to avoid federal tax, as opposed to bearer form, to mitigate tax fraud presumably. So the burden on the states was de minimus. Granted, the holding was broader, to wit that the feds can tax municipal bonds at will, but effectively as the court noted, that is really economically a federal subsidy to the States as to which they have no Constitutional right.  Moreover as a policy matter, municipal bonds are a huge tax subsidy and loophole for the rich. If I ran the show, municipal bonds would be fully taxable by the Feds. 

Yes, you guess it:

NFIB v. Sebelius

[Antonio the Sixth]

With Ginsburg. Obamacare is fully encompassed by the Commerce/Necessary and Proper clauses (what the hell is health insurance, if not a form of interstate commerce?!?). Though Roberts' justification of it as a tax also makes sense. Meaning, there is not one, but two reasons to uphold the law.

Also, the idea that States could "opt out" of the Medicaid expansion is ridiculous and stands on no ground. Medicaid is a federal program, funded by the federal government even if it is managed by the States, so as long as Medicaid itself has been deemed within the Federal Government's powers, this means that the Federal Government can do whatever it wants with it. Can't believe Kagan and Breyer got behind the majority here.

Furman v. Georgia

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Agree with the majority, but only based on the arbitrary argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Leon

[Supersonic]

I would have signed onto the majority verdict that 'good faith' evidence is admissible.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller (quite an interesting one)

[Beet]

With the majority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Yoder

[Marokai Backbeat]

Dissent.

Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'd have concurred with Alito in his opinion that agreed with the decision but not how Scalia reached it.  In particular, I see no reason why the finding in Ginsberg v. New York should not be extended from sex to violence.  Furthermore, given the interactive nature of video games, the comparison should not be made with pornography but actual sexual acts.

Anyway, since I mentioned it:
 Ginsberg v. New York

[TNF]

Dissent.

Kelo v. New London

[Antonio the Sixth]

This is most definitely a hard one... I don't think anyone can legitimately rule completely in one way or another, because both rulings could have pretty awful consequences. On the one hand, that would mean forcing municipalities to do all the public works themselves as soon as such works would involve expropriations. On the other sides, giving a complete blanc chèque to municipalities could easily lead to terrible overreaches, and to municipalities arbitrarily taking property away from a private to give it to another. There obviously needs to be some balance.

I would have subscribed to Kennedy's concurring opinion. This would be one of the rare cases where I agree with the "moderate voice" more than I agree with any of the two "wings" of the Court. I think Kennedy comes out with a rigorous test which is well-crafted and effective in determining what is and what isn't "public use". I might actually support an even more rigorous test, mandating that any attribution of property to a corporation could only be done through a tightly regulated government procurement, but fundamentally I agree with Kennedy.

I also was quite surprised when I saw how the justices stood. Actually, I would have imagined that Breyer, Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg would have supported Kelo while Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and O'Connor would have stood with the city. That would make more sense with regard to a left/right divide.

Texas v. Johnson