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

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

gregg v. georgia

I surprised as I didn't think you'd be in favor of allowing mandatory capital punishment for certain crimes.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

gregg v. georgia

I surprised as I didn't think you'd be in favor of allowing mandatory capital punishment for certain crimes.

heh

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

gregg v. georgia

I surprised as I didn't think you'd be in favor of allowing mandatory capital punishment for certain crimes.

heh

Just pointing out there are cases that could be changed in multiple ways, thus making a simple listing of cases not the best way to answer the OP.

[JackV982]

I would want to change Roe vs Wade, Gregg vs Georgia, Citizens United vs FEC, and Johnson vs M'Intosh

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

JCL, I hope you realize that the Bible has no relevance to US law.

The Bible is the most influential book in the forming of the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. So it's relevance on American jurisprudence should be self evident.

Being gay is a choice and not an intrinsic difference.

I bet your gay friends find that really convincing

Which part?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The Bible is the most influential book in the forming of the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. So it's relevance on American jurisprudence should be self evident.

Um. That's not right.

[Illiniwek]

By far, Roe vs Wade, Gregg vs Georgia, Citizens United vs FEC, Bush vs Gore.

[Sumner 1868]

1. Dred Scott v. Sanford
2. Korematsu v. United States
3. Scheneck v. United States
4. Bush v. Gore

[Starpaul20]

Citizens United v. FEC
Korematsu v. United States
Bush v. Gore
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

[Mr. Reactionary]

The Bible is the most influential book in the forming of the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. So it's relevance on American jurisprudence should be self evident.

Um. That's not right.

Not entirely. But the general idea that rights come from God and exist independent of government was a bedrock principle for the founders. We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights which the government may never take away.

[Bojack Horseman]

Planned Parenthood V. Casey, Hobby Lobby, EGUSD V. Newdow, and Miller V. Alabama (to say that all juvenile life sentences are unconstitutional per 8th Amendment, not just automatic ones)

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Roe v. Wade
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Korematsu v. United States
Wallace v. Jaffree

Although I would be inclined to mention Dred Scott, Plessy, or another civil rights case, I chose not to because the Supreme Court eventually overturned those in a number of subsequent decisions (Brown, Morgan, Boynton, etc.) 

[tschandler]

Wickard vs Filburn
Clinton vs City of New York
NFIB vs Sebelius
Heath vs Alabama

No Roe you ask?  Unlike most right of center people I am generally comfortable with the status quo in abortion law.  Birth Control should be over the counter.  The Feds should never expect the taxpayer to fund abortions either.  But bans/regulations would only force certain activity underground/into black markets.   Abortion on demand should be legally available on non-viable fetuses.   Past the point of viability abortion should only be available to save the life of the mother.   

[Young Conservative]

1. Roe VS Wade
2. Any case that allowed slavery and/or dealing with the continuation of segregation or racist practices

3.NFIB VS. Sebellius
4.King VS Burwell
 5. Oberfell VS. Hodges
All of these are incredibly important to me, but the first two deal with immediate dehumanization so they are marked as such.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

1. Roe VS Wade
2. Any case that allowed slavery and/or dealing with the continuation of segregation or racist practices

3.NFIB VS. Sebellius
4.King VS Burwell
 5. Oberfell VS. Hodges
All of these are incredibly important to me, but the first two deal with immediate dehumanization so they are marked as such.

You are drawing a huge distinction between Loving v. Virginia and Obergefell v. Hodges.  Can you elaborate on why?  To me, they are basically extensions of the same thing.

I can't speak to his reasoning, but I'll point out once again that in my opinion Obergefell v. Hodges isn't the closest SSM parallel to Loving v. Virginia.  Rather Lawrence v. Texas was as the Virginia anti-miscegenation statute did not merely deny recognition to interracial marriage, but criminalized it.  Criminalizing an activity is far more intrusive than simply not giving it support.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Was it illegal to own gay porn before then? If gay sex was illegal before Lawrence v. Texas, wouldn't gay porn be too?

[President Johnson]

Citizens United
Hobby Lobby
Holder v. Shelby County
Clinton v. City of New York

[Citizen Hats]

I'm surprised that none of our Libertarians brought up Euclid v. Ambler, where the court held that preservation of 'character' was an acceptable reason for the regulation of land use, opening the doorway towards exclusionary zoning. 

[Kingpoleon]

I recuse myself due to my lack of judicial experience.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

1. Roe v. Wade
2. Reynolds v. Simms
3. Wickard v. Filburn
4. NFIB v. Sebelius


There is a special place in hell for Dred Scott v Sanford and Plessy v. Ferguson. The Curtis dissent and Harlan dissent are among my favorites. The first was almost pure boiling anger pouring over and reasonably so.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

From the top of my head:

Gregg v. Georgia
Bush v. Gore
Citizens United
Korematsu v. United States

[RightBehind]

Citizens United
Korematsu
Hobby Lobby
Voting Rights Reversal

[I’m not Stu]

Kelo v. New London (eminent domain is a problem for property rights), Citizens United, King v. Burwell, and Shelby County v. Holder (the VRA's section 5 got overwhelming support from both parties in congress, the court should have exercised judicial restraint and deferred to congress), Korematsu as a fifth decision to reverse, and Buck v. Bell as a sixth. I think Roe v. Wade should be left alone. I am a libertarian-leaning moderate conservative who believes the constitution is a living document. I believe DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago should also be left alone.

[MarkD]

1. Bush v. Gore
2. Griswold v. Connecticut (because this would have a domino effect of also overturning Roe and Lawrence)
3. Baker v. Carr
4. Levy v. Louisiana (the worst-written opinion I have ever seen)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

How is Levy v. Louisiana badly written?  I do think it could have been more narrowly written under the circumstances, but that's more a preference in the result than the writing quality.