If you could change 4 Supreme Court cases what would you change (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 01, 2024, 04:42:45 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.)
  If you could change 4 Supreme Court cases what would you change (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: If you could change 4 Supreme Court cases what would you change  (Read 29406 times)
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,689
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW
« on: July 03, 2015, 02:40:51 PM »

Schenk v. US  (1919) - decision upholding the prosecution of anti-draft protestors that lives on in such phrases as "clear and present danger" and "shouting fire in a crowded theater."

Wickard v. Filburn (1942) - "interstate commerce" as an unrestricted license to limit and direct the economic activity of individuals.

Roe v Wade & Doe v Bolton (1973) - both released on the same day, the second extending the application of the first, so I'm treating them as one.

Employment Division v. Smith  (1990) - decision broke the presumption held for several decades prior that the 1st Amendment protected free exercise of religion against laws of general applicability.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,689
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 11, 2015, 12:36:06 AM »

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.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,689
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2015, 12:02:43 PM »

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.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.019 seconds with 14 queries.