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

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

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.

Roe is on our side(pro-life side) now too.

[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.)

[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.)

Roe v. Wade
Plessy v. Ferguson
Obergefell v. Hodges
Wallace v. Jaffree

OK, I've thought this out:

1. Roe v. Wade (do I really even need to say more)
2. NFIB v. Sebelius (saying that you can be forced to buy anything is scary)
3. Obergefell v. Hodges (killed federalism and was a perfect example of judicial activism and overstepping)
4. The case in the 1910s after Wilson passed income tax (yes, I think income tax is unconstitutional)

You're all horrible, bigoted people.

Dude, get to know someone before you resort to flamethrowing based on political views.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

OK. There have been other SC decisions dealing with states' rights. Why would you pick that one if you're not a bigot?

And I've read enough of your posts to back up my earlier statement. Excuse my emotional reaction to your bigotry considering that I have gay friends and relatives and I live in an area that has mostly moved past that nonsense.

I have gay friends too. I've treated them with nothing but the utmost respect. Even when I've declared simply what the Bible says about the subject. So no, I'm not a bigot. I back what I say because the decision by the court was on an issue not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Notice I also mentioned Row v Wade (which is also a states rights issue) which the court got wrong.

Now back to the marriage rulings. Most of the states (including mine) have laws which define marriage as one man and one woman. It was when the courts (and not the people or their representatives) stuck their crooked and evil fingers that it got ugly.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

OK. There have been other SC decisions dealing with states' rights. Why would you pick that one if you're not a bigot?

And I've read enough of your posts to back up my earlier statement. Excuse my emotional reaction to your bigotry considering that I have gay friends and relatives and I live in an area that has mostly moved past that nonsense.

I have gay friends too. I've treated them with nothing but the utmost respect. Even when I've declared simply what the Bible says about the subject. So no, I'm not a bigot. I back what I say because the decision by the court was on an issue not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Notice I also mentioned Row v Wade (which is also a states rights issue) which the court got wrong.

Now back to the marriage rulings. Most of the states (including mine) have laws which define marriage as one man and one woman. It was when the courts (and not the people or their representatives) stuck their crooked and evil fingers that it got ugly.

You do realize public opinion was ahead of the courts on this issue, yes? And in any event, if a "majority" (scare quotes very much necessary) is infringing on the constitutional rights of a minority group, the courts can and should step in.

You can't allow basic constitutional equality to be up for a vote. We have checks and balances in our government for a reason.

I firmly believe in those checks and balances. 37 states and the people have had their just laws overturned by Anthony Kennedy of all people. The 14th amendment cannot be made to apply to grant special rights to a class of individual that is not a God given/intrinsic difference. Being gay is a choice and not an intrinsic difference.

[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?