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

[Skill and Chance]

Dred Scott v. Sandford
Plessy v. Ferguson
Korematsu v. U.S
Citizens United v. FEC

I think he means decisions that are current law?  Your first three have been overturned.

[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?

[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. 

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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/

Well then, it seems like I'm in quite a minority in the abortion is morally wrong but ≠ murder prior to viability camp.

[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.

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/

Well then, it seems like I'm in quite a minority in the abortion is morally wrong but ≠ murder prior to viability camp.

I think a lot of "pro-choicers" would concede that abortion is at least morally questionable if not outright wrong (a lot of liberal but not completely progressive (UMC, PCUSA but not UCC or Unitarians/Universalists) Protestant denominations); Christianity has a very long pro-life tradition dating back to the 1st century (with an excommunication for those obtaining one).

John Calvin (mentioned previously) and Martin Luther were very strongly pro-life as well, though admittedly, conservative Protestants are more vigorously pro-life now than they were in the 1960's and early 1970's when the issue came to the forefront.  

http://evangelicalsforlife.com/?p=54

Nonetheless, you would still be firmly "pro-life" relative to what the law is right now with your viewpoints, given that 2nd trimester abortions are rather easy to obtain in many states.

Yes, I would say I am neutral prior to viability and 100% pro-life after viability.  I would be happy to see all states institute 12-18 week limits as is the case in most of western Europe, given that viability keeps getting pushed back further.  The strongest pro-choice argument to me is the one you almost never hear: unwanted pregnancy = 13th Amendment slavery.  Still, it's hard to work out exactly when the developing child has rights that would trump bodily autonomy.  For me, it's clearly prior to birth, though.