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

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Even though it decided an election i don't see why many would want to use Bush v. Gore as one of the 4 seeing as it isn't being used as precedent and nobody knows if Gore would have won the recount

If the recount had been allowed to continue, it wouldn't have cast a pall over the whole process. I think there's a credible argument to be made that Bush v. Gore, while not being used as precedent, helped to contribute materially to cynicism over our election processes.

But the same could have been said had the decision been flipped and gore won after endless recounts

In the sense that at least one recount would have increased the fidelity of the results, no you couldn't.

Maybe if Gore had asked for a statewide recount instead of selective recounts in counties where he thought it would help him, it would increased the perceived fidelity of the results. Both sides contributed to electoral cynicism in 2000.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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).

A long pro-life tradition, but not a long tradition of human life begins at conception.

http://www.uuworld.org/articles/theological-rationale-abortion

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

4. The case in the 1910s after Wilson passed income tax (yes, I think income tax is unconstitutional)

It's a common misconception that the income tax was ever ruled unconstitutional. What happened was that taxes on certain types of income were ruled a direct tax that would require a cumbersome apportionment among the States. Even if one accepts the specious argument that certain States did not actually ratify any income tax amendment and don't count the ratifications of Kentucky, Ohio, thirty-nine did, more than enough even with the addition of two additional States since then.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Excluding rulings that were later overturned:

1. Roe v. Wade (and by extent, Doe v. Bolton): the Dred Scott decision of our time.  It not only denied humanity to the unborn, but ushered in a genocide of children that continues to this day, all for the crime of being "unwanted" or "inconvenient."

Not really.  Abortion law was already in the process of becoming more permissive at the time Roe was being decided. The problem with Roe wasn't so much the result as much as the Court presuming what the ultimate result would be and short-circuiting the legislative process.  I suspect that without Roe, most (and maybe even all) States would have ended up legalizing first trimester abortions, which is when most abortions take place.