If you could change 4 Supreme Court cases what would you change

[RFayette]

1. Roe v. Wade (not even close)
2. Clinton v. City of New York (I like the line item veto)
3. Florida v. HHS (Don't like Obamacare)
4. Griggs v. Duke Power Company (I think standardized tests should be allowed for employment consideration, as this could've prevented a lot of the credential inflation we've seen since, fueling the self-inflicted college loan bubble)

In light of what's happened to America since and its incredible secularization, Engel v. Vitale is a very tempting one as well.  I'd also consider Bush v. Gore (way too much partisan divisions happened because of this, even though I'm quite conflicted on the case itself)  and Citizens United (same thing).

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

1. Roe v. Wade (not even close)
2. Clinton v. City of New York (I like the line item veto)
3. Florida v. HHS (Don't like Obamacare)
4. Griggs v. Duke Power Company (I think standardized tests should be allowed for employment consideration, as this could've prevented a lot of the credential inflation we've seen since, fueling the self-inflicted college loan bubble)

In light of what's happened to America since and its incredible secularization, Engel v. Vitale is a very tempting one as well.  I'd also consider Bush v. Gore (way too much partisan divisions happened because of this, even though I'm quite conflicted on the case itself)  and Citizens United (same thing).

I'm generally not a fan of standardized tests for employment, but I can imagine an employer trying to comply with both Griggs v Duke Power and Ricci v DeStefano at the same time must be a nightmare.  Seems like if you want to hire people in any field you need both an expert in anti-discrimination law and a statistician to measure disparate impact and effectiveness of your employment practices.

[RFayette]

1. Roe v. Wade (not even close)
2. Clinton v. City of New York (I like the line item veto)
3. Florida v. HHS (Don't like Obamacare)
4. Griggs v. Duke Power Company (I think standardized tests should be allowed for employment consideration, as this could've prevented a lot of the credential inflation we've seen since, fueling the self-inflicted college loan bubble)

In light of what's happened to America since and its incredible secularization, Engel v. Vitale is a very tempting one as well.  I'd also consider Bush v. Gore (way too much partisan divisions happened because of this, even though I'm quite conflicted on the case itself)  and Citizens United (same thing).

I'm generally not a fan of standardized tests for employment, but I can imagine an employer trying to comply with both Griggs v Duke Power and Ricci v DeStefano at the same time must be a nightmare.  Seems like if you want to hire people in any field you need both an expert in anti-discrimination law and a statistician to measure disparate impact and effectiveness of your employment practices.

If you can require an irrelevant BA for a job, then I dont see a problem with giving a test to measure similar skills. If a company found it to be useful, I think they should have those tests at their arsenal.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Really? Nobody's mentioned Gregg v. Georgia yet?

[Skill and Chance]

1. Roe v. Wade (not even close)
2. Clinton v. City of New York (I like the line item veto)
3. Florida v. HHS (Don't like Obamacare)
4. Griggs v. Duke Power Company (I think standardized tests should be allowed for employment consideration, as this could've prevented a lot of the credential inflation we've seen since, fueling the self-inflicted college loan bubble)

In light of what's happened to America since and its incredible secularization, Engel v. Vitale is a very tempting one as well.  I'd also consider Bush v. Gore (way too much partisan divisions happened because of this, even though I'm quite conflicted on the case itself)  and Citizens United (same thing).

While I don't see explicit school prayer as particularly repugnant to the Constitution, I fail to see how society would be meaningfully different today with it still in place.  I say this as a believing Christian who used the public school "moment of silence" to pray to Christ.

[Skill and Chance]

1. Roe v. Wade (not even close)
2. Clinton v. City of New York (I like the line item veto)
3. Florida v. HHS (Don't like Obamacare)
4. Griggs v. Duke Power Company (I think standardized tests should be allowed for employment consideration, as this could've prevented a lot of the credential inflation we've seen since, fueling the self-inflicted college loan bubble)

In light of what's happened to America since and its incredible secularization, Engel v. Vitale is a very tempting one as well.  I'd also consider Bush v. Gore (way too much partisan divisions happened because of this, even though I'm quite conflicted on the case itself)  and Citizens United (same thing).

I'm generally not a fan of standardized tests for employment, but I can imagine an employer trying to comply with both Griggs v Duke Power and Ricci v DeStefano at the same time must be a nightmare.  Seems like if you want to hire people in any field you need both an expert in anti-discrimination law and a statistician to measure disparate impact and effectiveness of your employment practices.

If you can require an irrelevant BA for a job, then I dont see a problem with giving a test to measure similar skills. If a company found it to be useful, I think they should have those tests at their arsenal.

An interesting corollary is what if the Court had instead ruled that "Where did you go to school?" was illegal class discrimination?  I wonder the world would be like today?

[RFayette]

1. Roe v. Wade (not even close)
2. Clinton v. City of New York (I like the line item veto)
3. Florida v. HHS (Don't like Obamacare)
4. Griggs v. Duke Power Company (I think standardized tests should be allowed for employment consideration, as this could've prevented a lot of the credential inflation we've seen since, fueling the self-inflicted college loan bubble)

In light of what's happened to America since and its incredible secularization, Engel v. Vitale is a very tempting one as well.  I'd also consider Bush v. Gore (way too much partisan divisions happened because of this, even though I'm quite conflicted on the case itself)  and Citizens United (same thing).

While I don't see explicit school prayer as particularly repugnant to the Constitution, I fail to see how society would be meaningfully different today with it still in place.  I say this as a believing Christian who used the public school "moment of silence" to pray to Christ.

Perhaps I am mistaking cause and effect.  Maybe that decision was more reflective of increasing secularism than anything.  I just wax nostalgic for the religiosity and moral conservatism of the 1950's in America and would love to see it come back....that decision seemed like a turning point....

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

1. Roe v. Wade (not even close)
2. Clinton v. City of New York (I like the line item veto)
3. Florida v. HHS (Don't like Obamacare)
4. Griggs v. Duke Power Company (I think standardized tests should be allowed for employment consideration, as this could've prevented a lot of the credential inflation we've seen since, fueling the self-inflicted college loan bubble)

In light of what's happened to America since and its incredible secularization, Engel v. Vitale is a very tempting one as well.  I'd also consider Bush v. Gore (way too much partisan divisions happened because of this, even though I'm quite conflicted on the case itself)  and Citizens United (same thing).

While I don't see explicit school prayer as particularly repugnant to the Constitution, I fail to see how society would be meaningfully different today with it still in place.  I say this as a believing Christian who used the public school "moment of silence" to pray to Christ.

Perhaps I am mistaking cause and effect.  Maybe that decision was more reflective of increasing secularism than anything.  I just wax nostalgic for the religiosity and moral conservatism of the 1950's in America and would love to see it come back....that decision seemed like a turning point....

In the 1950s it was not clear that Communism would so utterly fail in providing for the material needs of the people. As a result we turned to religion as a distinction. Once it became reasonably clear we wouldn't lose the Cold War economically, that impetus faded and would have regardless of the school prayer decision.

[RFayette]

1. Roe v. Wade (not even close)
2. Clinton v. City of New York (I like the line item veto)
3. Florida v. HHS (Don't like Obamacare)
4. Griggs v. Duke Power Company (I think standardized tests should be allowed for employment consideration, as this could've prevented a lot of the credential inflation we've seen since, fueling the self-inflicted college loan bubble)

In light of what's happened to America since and its incredible secularization, Engel v. Vitale is a very tempting one as well.  I'd also consider Bush v. Gore (way too much partisan divisions happened because of this, even though I'm quite conflicted on the case itself)  and Citizens United (same thing).

While I don't see explicit school prayer as particularly repugnant to the Constitution, I fail to see how society would be meaningfully different today with it still in place.  I say this as a believing Christian who used the public school "moment of silence" to pray to Christ.

Perhaps I am mistaking cause and effect.  Maybe that decision was more reflective of increasing secularism than anything.  I just wax nostalgic for the religiosity and moral conservatism of the 1950's in America and would love to see it come back....that decision seemed like a turning point....

In the 1950s it was not clear that Communism would so utterly fail in providing for the material needs of the people. As a result we turned to religion as a distinction. Once it became reasonably clear we wouldn't lose the Cold War economically, that impetus faded and would have regardless of the school prayer decision.

Good point.  It just seems like that court decision helped accelerate the fading away though.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Can someone explain to me the massive dislike of Kelo v New London? I get that if you have a massive distrust in corporate entities, it seems like a horrible path to go down. But wouldn't that distrust lead to opposing basically any private contracting from the federal government? Apologies for my ignorance on the case.

Many freedom-lovers like myself see the ownership of private property (including land) as being important for securing liberty and security. You can (almost) do whatever you want in your own home, limited to 4 general categories: 1.) Law + Regulatory Enforcement 2.) Taxation 3.) Eminent Domain 4.) Escheat.

In Kelo, SCOTUS changed the test for category # 3 from public use (requiring the government to have a specific need to control the land) to public purpose (only requiring that the government benefit from the transaction in some way). This means its now OK for the government to take your house or mine or the Synagogue down the street. Family farms. Small Businesses. All the government has to do is show that the "anticipated" revenues from giving the land to Wal-Mart or Pep Boys or Monsanto are higher than if the previous owner stayed. Higher tax revenues from corporations getting whatever land they want "benefits" the public, so our ownership rights are greatly threatened. Eminent Domain isn't as sexy as Free Speech or guns or the death penalty, but it is still a bill of rights issue. And SCOTUS dropped the ball on Kelo.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

A silver lining of Kelo though is that the reaction against it encouraged many states to enact policies restricting eminent domain much more than they would have otherwise.

[Skill and Chance]

1. Roe v. Wade (not even close)
2. Clinton v. City of New York (I like the line item veto)
3. Florida v. HHS (Don't like Obamacare)
4. Griggs v. Duke Power Company (I think standardized tests should be allowed for employment consideration, as this could've prevented a lot of the credential inflation we've seen since, fueling the self-inflicted college loan bubble)

In light of what's happened to America since and its incredible secularization, Engel v. Vitale is a very tempting one as well.  I'd also consider Bush v. Gore (way too much partisan divisions happened because of this, even though I'm quite conflicted on the case itself)  and Citizens United (same thing).

While I don't see explicit school prayer as particularly repugnant to the Constitution, I fail to see how society would be meaningfully different today with it still in place.  I say this as a believing Christian who used the public school "moment of silence" to pray to Christ.

Perhaps I am mistaking cause and effect.  Maybe that decision was more reflective of increasing secularism than anything.  I just wax nostalgic for the religiosity and moral conservatism of the 1950's in America and would love to see it come back....that decision seemed like a turning point....

In the 1950s it was not clear that Communism would so utterly fail in providing for the material needs of the people. As a result we turned to religion as a distinction. Once it became reasonably clear we wouldn't lose the Cold War economically, that impetus faded and would have regardless of the school prayer decision.

Good point.  It just seems like that court decision helped accelerate the fading away though.

Ehhh, I think the perceived "wholesomeness" of the 1950's is really the peak of a great effort of what I would call cultural gerrymandering that started around 1910 with the Progressive Era.  It's one of the only times in recent history when the media actively downplayed bad news.  I doubt there was really any less illicit activity or any more (sincere) religiosity in that era.  People were willing to ignore a lot more for the sake of projecting a united front.  They were sinners like all others, but they played along for the camera in a way that is no longer necessary. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

1. Roe v. Wade (not even close)
2. Clinton v. City of New York (I like the line item veto)
3. Florida v. HHS (Don't like Obamacare)
4. Griggs v. Duke Power Company (I think standardized tests should be allowed for employment consideration, as this could've prevented a lot of the credential inflation we've seen since, fueling the self-inflicted college loan bubble)

In light of what's happened to America since and its incredible secularization, Engel v. Vitale is a very tempting one as well.  I'd also consider Bush v. Gore (way too much partisan divisions happened because of this, even though I'm quite conflicted on the case itself)  and Citizens United (same thing).

While I don't see explicit school prayer as particularly repugnant to the Constitution, I fail to see how society would be meaningfully different today with it still in place.  I say this as a believing Christian who used the public school "moment of silence" to pray to Christ.

Perhaps I am mistaking cause and effect.  Maybe that decision was more reflective of increasing secularism than anything.  I just wax nostalgic for the religiosity and moral conservatism of the 1950's in America and would love to see it come back....that decision seemed like a turning point....

In the 1950s it was not clear that Communism would so utterly fail in providing for the material needs of the people. As a result we turned to religion as a distinction. Once it became reasonably clear we wouldn't lose the Cold War economically, that impetus faded and would have regardless of the school prayer decision.

Good point.  It just seems like that court decision helped accelerate the fading away though.

Ehhh, I think the perceived "wholesomeness" of the 1950's is really the peak of a great effort of what I would call cultural gerrymandering that started around 1910 with the Progressive Era.  It's one of the only times in recent history when the media actively downplayed bad news.  I doubt there was really any less illicit activity or any more (sincere) religiosity in that era.  People were willing to ignore a lot more for the sake of projecting a united front.  They were sinners like all others, but they played along for the camera in a way that is no longer necessary. 

Regardless of whether they were sincere or not, as a percentage of population, church attendance and membership peaked in the 1950s. That can make attending a mainline church built in the 1950s depressing if it was built to handle growth that never happened. The local Disciples of Christ congregation is a prime example of that.

[Skill and Chance]

1. Roe v. Wade (not even close)
2. Clinton v. City of New York (I like the line item veto)
3. Florida v. HHS (Don't like Obamacare)
4. Griggs v. Duke Power Company (I think standardized tests should be allowed for employment consideration, as this could've prevented a lot of the credential inflation we've seen since, fueling the self-inflicted college loan bubble)

In light of what's happened to America since and its incredible secularization, Engel v. Vitale is a very tempting one as well.  I'd also consider Bush v. Gore (way too much partisan divisions happened because of this, even though I'm quite conflicted on the case itself)  and Citizens United (same thing).

While I don't see explicit school prayer as particularly repugnant to the Constitution, I fail to see how society would be meaningfully different today with it still in place.  I say this as a believing Christian who used the public school "moment of silence" to pray to Christ.

Perhaps I am mistaking cause and effect.  Maybe that decision was more reflective of increasing secularism than anything.  I just wax nostalgic for the religiosity and moral conservatism of the 1950's in America and would love to see it come back....that decision seemed like a turning point....

In the 1950s it was not clear that Communism would so utterly fail in providing for the material needs of the people. As a result we turned to religion as a distinction. Once it became reasonably clear we wouldn't lose the Cold War economically, that impetus faded and would have regardless of the school prayer decision.

Good point.  It just seems like that court decision helped accelerate the fading away though.

Ehhh, I think the perceived "wholesomeness" of the 1950's is really the peak of a great effort of what I would call cultural gerrymandering that started around 1910 with the Progressive Era.  It's one of the only times in recent history when the media actively downplayed bad news.  I doubt there was really any less illicit activity or any more (sincere) religiosity in that era.  People were willing to ignore a lot more for the sake of projecting a united front.  They were sinners like all others, but they played along for the camera in a way that is no longer necessary. 

Regardless of whether they were sincere or not, as a percentage of population, church attendance and membership peaked in the 1950s. That can make attending a mainline church built in the 1950s depressing if it was built to handle growth that never happened. The local Disciples of Christ congregation is a prime example of that.

Wow.  I would have thought church attendance peaked much later in much of SC, possibly as late as 2005 in some areas.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

1. Roe v. Wade (not even close)
2. Clinton v. City of New York (I like the line item veto)
3. Florida v. HHS (Don't like Obamacare)
4. Griggs v. Duke Power Company (I think standardized tests should be allowed for employment consideration, as this could've prevented a lot of the credential inflation we've seen since, fueling the self-inflicted college loan bubble)

In light of what's happened to America since and its incredible secularization, Engel v. Vitale is a very tempting one as well.  I'd also consider Bush v. Gore (way too much partisan divisions happened because of this, even though I'm quite conflicted on the case itself)  and Citizens United (same thing).

While I don't see explicit school prayer as particularly repugnant to the Constitution, I fail to see how society would be meaningfully different today with it still in place.  I say this as a believing Christian who used the public school "moment of silence" to pray to Christ.

Perhaps I am mistaking cause and effect.  Maybe that decision was more reflective of increasing secularism than anything.  I just wax nostalgic for the religiosity and moral conservatism of the 1950's in America and would love to see it come back....that decision seemed like a turning point....

In the 1950s it was not clear that Communism would so utterly fail in providing for the material needs of the people. As a result we turned to religion as a distinction. Once it became reasonably clear we wouldn't lose the Cold War economically, that impetus faded and would have regardless of the school prayer decision.

Good point.  It just seems like that court decision helped accelerate the fading away though.

Ehhh, I think the perceived "wholesomeness" of the 1950's is really the peak of a great effort of what I would call cultural gerrymandering that started around 1910 with the Progressive Era.  It's one of the only times in recent history when the media actively downplayed bad news.  I doubt there was really any less illicit activity or any more (sincere) religiosity in that era.  People were willing to ignore a lot more for the sake of projecting a united front.  They were sinners like all others, but they played along for the camera in a way that is no longer necessary. 

Regardless of whether they were sincere or not, as a percentage of population, church attendance and membership peaked in the 1950s. That can make attending a mainline church built in the 1950s depressing if it was built to handle growth that never happened. The local Disciples of Christ congregation is a prime example of that.

Wow.  I would have thought church attendance peaked much later in much of SC, possibly as late as 2005 in some areas.

Columbia is not the Upstate, and I was referring to national trends in any case.

[politicallefty]

Can someone explain to me the massive dislike of Kelo v New London? I get that if you have a massive distrust in corporate entities, it seems like a horrible path to go down. But wouldn't that distrust lead to opposing basically any private contracting from the federal government? Apologies for my ignorance on the case.

This has been argued here in the relatively recent past. Based on my views opposing the majority in Kelo, I would advise you to read Justice O'Connor's dissent (not surprisingly, Justice Thomas' lone dissent is too far out there for me). It's not often that I disagree with the entire liberal-leaning majority (+Kennedy), but I think their interpretation of the Fifth Amendment severely abridged the rights of the people that the Bill of Rights are there to protect.

[freepcrusher]

US vs Macdonald (1982)
Bush vs Gore (2000)
PA Redistricting Case in 03 (can't remember name)
Duke vs Griggs Power

[politicallefty]

PA Redistricting Case in 03 (can't remember name)

Vieth v. Jubelirer? I do agree with you, but I'm not sure what the proper constitutional remedy would be. There was no majority opinion in that case, just a plurality with a concurrence from Justice Kennedy. If Justice Kennedy could be convinced of a remedy, it could be possible to end partisan gerrymandering. It was his concurrence in that case that gave me the now-justified optimism in the case to uphold Arizona's redistricting commission.

[Skill and Chance]

Roe v. Wade

Then, the other 3 don't even matter, because 57 million lives have been saved!

Because there would clearly be no abortion at all if it were illegal?  And even California and New York would ban it if it were still left to the states, as was the default before Roe v. Wade?  I'm sorry, but this is the right wing version of assuming that just passing a law automatically solves the problem for good.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Roe v Wade (leaving this issue up to the states would've saved millions)
Florida v HHS (obamacare is an unjust law and must die)
National Federation of Business v Sebelius (see above)
Hodges v Obergefall (the courts have no right to overturn the laws of the 37 states who hold to the Biblical definition of marriage. Plus this conflicts with the proscription on the government to interdict itself into theological matters.)

[RFayette]

Roe v. Wade

Then, the other 3 don't even matter, because 57 million lives have been saved!

Because there would clearly be no abortion at all if it were illegal?  And even California and New York would ban it if it were still left to the states, as was the default before Roe v. Wade?  I'm sorry, but this is the right wing version of assuming that just passing a law automatically solves the problem for good.

Indeed, but I'd wager the total abortion figure would be lower, and it would get harder to legalize abortion with modern ultrasound images now, so while it's an oversimplification to say 57 million lives would be saved, some would have been saved for sure.

[Mr. Smith]

In place the now null and void cases, I add McClesky v Kemp

[Skill and Chance]

Roe v. Wade

Then, the other 3 don't even matter, because 57 million lives have been saved!

Because there would clearly be no abortion at all if it were illegal?  And even California and New York would ban it if it were still left to the states, as was the default before Roe v. Wade?  I'm sorry, but this is the right wing version of assuming that just passing a law automatically solves the problem for good.

Indeed, but I'd wager the total abortion figure would be lower, and it would get harder to legalize abortion with modern ultrasound images now, so while it's an oversimplification to say 57 million lives would be saved, some would have been saved for sure.

How illegal would you make it?  There's a big difference between premeditated murder charges vs. a $500 fine and mandatory sex ed classes.  Personally, I would be pretty okay with the latter but couldn't stand for the former.  Also, it's always been interesting to me that the penalty for inducing miscarriage under the Mosaic law was only a fine vs. the death penalty for murder.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Roe v. Wade

Then, the other 3 don't even matter, because 57 million lives have been saved!

Because there would clearly be no abortion at all if it were illegal?  And even California and New York would ban it if it were still left to the states, as was the default before Roe v. Wade?  I'm sorry, but this is the right wing version of assuming that just passing a law automatically solves the problem for good.

Indeed, but I'd wager the total abortion figure would be lower, and it would get harder to legalize abortion with modern ultrasound images now, so while it's an oversimplification to say 57 million lives would be saved, some would have been saved for sure.

How illegal would you make it?  There's a big difference between premeditated murder charges vs. a $500 fine and mandatory sex ed classes.  Personally, I would be pretty okay with the latter but couldn't stand for the former.  Also, it's always been interesting to me that the penalty for inducing miscarriage under the Mosaic law was only a fine vs. the death penalty for murder.

I believe abortion should be first-degree murder

[RFayette]

Roe v. Wade

Then, the other 3 don't even matter, because 57 million lives have been saved!

Because there would clearly be no abortion at all if it were illegal?  And even California and New York would ban it if it were still left to the states, as was the default before Roe v. Wade?  I'm sorry, but this is the right wing version of assuming that just passing a law automatically solves the problem for good.

Indeed, but I'd wager the total abortion figure would be lower, and it would get harder to legalize abortion with modern ultrasound images now, so while it's an oversimplification to say 57 million lives would be saved, some would have been saved for sure.

How illegal would you make it?  There's a big difference between premeditated murder charges vs. a $500 fine and mandatory sex ed classes.  Personally, I would be pretty okay with the latter but couldn't stand for the former.  Also, it's always been interesting to me that the penalty for inducing miscarriage under the Mosaic law was only a fine vs. the death penalty for murder.

I believe abortion should be first-degree murder

If you're referring to Exodus 21:22, that would be equivalent to manslaughter, not murder.  Intentionally inducing a miscarriage is what we're talking about, which is basically a murder contract between the abortionist and the mother.

As a member of the Reformed tradition, I take Mr. Calvin very seriously when he writes about this.

https://reformedvirginian1689.wordpress.com/2012/01/30/john-calvin-on-abortion/