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 06, 2024, 07:12:16 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 29484 times)
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW
« on: August 14, 2015, 07:43:43 PM »

Roe v. Wade
Plessy v. Ferguson
Obergefell v. Hodges
Wallace v. Jaffree
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2016, 04:28:16 PM »

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.) 
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 02, 2018, 02:26:10 PM »

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."

2. Korematsu v. United States: The internment of Japanese Americans during WWII (and, to a lesser extent, German and Italian Americans) not only violated the Equal Protection Clause but also the

3. Wallace v. Jaffree: There's no reason why schools should not be allowed to set aside a time for teachers and/or students to have meditation or voluntary prayer, as long as it is not requiring a prayer or sponsoring the recitation of a prayer.

4. Employment Division v. Smith: It's clear that Smith was engaging in a religious practice that could not and should not be abridged under the First Amendment, yet the Court decided to prioritize the War on Drugs instead.  (FTR, I oppose drug legalization, but when there is a clear example of it being used in longstanding religious tradition, such as this case, then I think that there should be exceptions.)
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 0.022 seconds with 11 queries.