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

[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.

[RFayette]

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.

[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. 

[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.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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

[100% pro-life no matter what]

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)

[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.

[Intell]

Roe v Wade
Bush vs Gore
Citizens United vs FEC
Wisconsin vs Yoder

[/]

Bush v Gore
Citizens United v FEC
Dred Scott v Sandford
Plessy v Ferguson

[Figueira]

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.

[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.

[Figueira]

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.

[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.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

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 can make literally the exact same argument against loving v virginia. it's a bad argument.))

[All Along The Watchtower]

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.

[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.

[SteveRogers]

Being gay is a choice and not an intrinsic difference.

[Citation Needed]

Anyway,

Korematsu v. U.S.
Hans v. Louisiana
California Democratic Party v. Jones
Shelby County v. Holder

(If I'm understanding this right, Dredd Scott and Plessy are off the table because they're no longer good law. So the question is not, "what case would we change if we could go back in time and alter the outcome," right?)

[Slander and/or Libel]

Being gay is a choice and not an intrinsic difference.

Can you tell us the story of when you chose to be straight?

[Figueira]

JCL, I hope you realize that the Bible has no relevance to US law.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Hans v. Louisiana
California Democratic Party v. Jones

Interesting, unusual choices.

[SteveRogers]

Hans v. Louisiana
California Democratic Party v. Jones

Interesting, unusual choices.

Hans v. Louisiana because I think the history of the 11th amendment and the whole concept of state sovereign immunity is silly to begin with, and Hans set off a line of cases that expanded sovereign immunity in a way that makes nonsense of the text of the 11th amendment.

California Democratic Party v. Jones because... ok I'll admit, I couldn't think of another landmark case off the top of my head, so I went with a wonky topic that I recently came across in some research I'm doing. But I do think that in that case the Court overstepped its bounds in limiting states' ability to experiment with different electoral systems, and the ruling forces states to give greater recognition and special protection to political parties than I'm generally comfortable with.

[Blair]

Being gay is a choice and not an intrinsic difference.

I bet your gay friends find that really convincing

[libertpaulian]

Roe v. Wade, NFIB v. Sebelius, Fernandez v. Caifornia, Gonzalez v. Raich

[Mr. Reactionary]

Hans v. Louisiana because I think the history of the 11th amendment and the whole concept of state sovereign immunity is silly to begin with, and Hans set off a line of cases that expanded sovereign immunity in a way that makes nonsense of the text of the 11th amendment.

My Fed Courts professor had the same view. Textually the 11th Amendment just eliminated one of the explicit grants of jurisdiction under Article 3, but now its interpreted as having guaranteed English Sovereign Immunity. Nice reference.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

citizens united v. f.e.c.
nazi party of america v. skokie
gregg v. georgia
burwell v. hobby lobby