Worst Supreme Court Decision of the 21st Century?

[MAINEiac4434]

Shelby County v. Holder (2013). It's not just that a bare majority of the court gutted one of the most important civil rights laws in American history; it's that the principle they relied on was one relied on by apologists for the Confederacy after the Civil War: that states possess a special dignity that's offended if we recognize that some engage in more race discrimination than others.

[KingSweden]

Surprised I'm the only one saying McDonnell v USA, which essentially legalized bribery.

[NewYorkExpress]

I'm astonished Bush v. Gore is in the minority so far.

The Supreme Court should never be in the business of picking the President.

[Blackacre]

Tough call but I am going to go with Citizens United over Shelby vs Holder. Citizens United is one of the three things that broke American politics, along with Mitch McConnell and (insert third thing here, probably Fox News).

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt

Honorable Mentions: NFIB v. Sebelius, Obergefell v. Hodges, King v. Burwell, Windsor v. US

[Alabama_Indy10]

Tough call but I am going to go with Citizens United over Shelby vs Holder. Citizens United is one of the three things that broke American politics, along with Mitch McConnell and (insert third thing here, probably Fox News).

Just.. What???

[BuckeyeNut]

I guess Bush v. Gore, but I'd consider it a 20th Century case.

Runners up include Citizens United v. FEC, Shelby County v. Holder, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, and District of Columbia v. Heller.

[Blackacre]

Tough call but I am going to go with Citizens United over Shelby vs Holder. Citizens United is one of the three things that broke American politics, along with Mitch McConnell and (insert third thing here, probably Fox News).

Just.. What???

Mitch McConnell broke American politics by abusing the institution of the Senate. Filibusters were not that common before 2009, but today they're routine. The vast majority of the dysfunction in Washington has its roots in McConnell. I'd even go so far as to say that he played a pivotal role in creating Trump.

The Fox News thing wasn't serious, I'm just beholden to the Rule of Three

[NewYorkExpress]

I guess Bush v. Gore, but I'd consider it a 20th Century case.

Runners up include Citizens United v. FEC, Shelby County v. Holder, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, and District of Columbia v. Heller.

Finally, someone who agrees with me thatBush v. Gore was the worst decision of the past seventeen years,

[scutosaurus]

Shelby County v. Holder, because it overturned portions one of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation, if not the most important, in U.S. history based on a garbage argument used by Confederate apologists and Jim Crow-era racists and formed the basis for modern voter suppression laws across the country.

Bush v. Gore, because it should not be within the Court's power to decide the President of the United States.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Citizens United v. FEC because it was a bunch of grown men with degrees from the most prestigious universities in the country trying to make a serious legal argument that corporations are people and that they are exercising their first amendment rights by buying elections.

[Tintrlvr]

Citizens United v. FEC. By far. Possibly the worst decision besides Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson.

So you think unlimited corporate political donations is even worse than forced sterilization?

Or Japanese internment. Korematsu has to be on any list of worst Supreme Court decisions ever.

Really tough call between Citizens United and Shelby County, but I'll go with Citizens United. Shelby County at least could be fixed by Congress. Hobby Lobby and Heller were also pretty awful. I am not convinced Bush v. Gore was a bad decision; it was definitely bad that it came to the Supreme Court at all and was decisive in the recounts, but some decision had to be made.

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

Citizens United v. FEC. By far. Possibly the worst decision besides Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson.

So you think unlimited corporate political donations is even worse than forced sterilization?

Or Japanese internment. Korematsu has to be on any list of worst Supreme Court decisions ever.

Really tough call between Citizens United and Shelby County, but I'll go with Citizens United. Shelby County at least could be fixed by Congress. Hobby Lobby and Heller were also pretty awful. I am not convinced Bush v. Gore was a bad decision; it was definitely bad that it came to the Supreme Court at all and was decisive in the recounts, but some decision had to be made.

If one's criteria is sheer naked partisanship, it has to be Heller. It overturned decades worth of precedent in a remarkably strained reading of case law. And Heller's companion, McDonald v City of Chicago flies in the face of local government primacy and needlessly overturned a reasonable 7th circuit decision penned by noted liberal activist judge Frank Easterbrook. CU could at least point to Buckley's principle, even if it did overturn McConnell only a decade later.

Korematsu is handily the worst SC decision since the turn of the 20th century.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I guess Bush v. Gore, but I'd consider it a 20th Century case.

Runners up include Citizens United v. FEC, Shelby County v. Holder, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, and District of Columbia v. Heller.

I thought this thread was about the worst SCOTUS opinions of the 21st century,  not the best.

[MarkD]

If one's criteria is sheer naked partisanship, it has to be Heller. It overturned decades worth of precedent in a remarkably strained reading of case law. And Heller's companion, McDonald v City of Chicago flies in the face of local government primacy and needlessly overturned a reasonable 7th circuit decision penned by noted liberal activist judge Frank Easterbrook. CU could at least point to Buckley's principle, even if it did overturn McConnell only a decade later.

Korematsu is handily the worst SC decision since the turn of the 20th century.

No, Bush v. Gorefits the description of being a decision based on "sheer naked partisanship." Every Justice in the majority of that decision was a Republican, and the legal justification for why they felt they had to rule in Bush's favor was so lame that no one in the majority had the cajones to take credit for writing the majority opinion. "Sheer naked partisanship," I take for granted, is distinct from ideological motivation. There is no other Supreme Court decision ever that was so blatantly motivated by sheer partisan loyalty .... five Republican Justices helped a fellow Republican clinch the election; the two Democrats on the Court at the time were among the dissenters.

[BuckeyeNut]

I guess Bush v. Gore, but I'd consider it a 20th Century case.

Runners up include Citizens United v. FEC, Shelby County v. Holder, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, and District of Columbia v. Heller.

I thought this thread was about the worst SCOTUS opinions of the 21st century,  not the best.

[daveosupremo]

NFIB Vs. Sebellius

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby is maybe the most infuriating for me.

[FairBol]

Kelo v City of New London is the worst, IMHO.  

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

In terms of completely butchering any sort of constitutional law analysis, Obergefell v Hodges. In terms of one of the most dangerous 21st century cases, Hamdi v Rumsfeld.

[Peanut]

Bush v. Gore and Citizens United v. FEC.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm astonished Bush v. Gore is in the minority so far.

The Supreme Court should never be in the business of picking the President.

What exactly does “never be in the business of picking the President” mean? No judicial relief related to elections at all? Or something more specific?

A lot of people hate on Bush v Gore without really understanding what the case was about, and while I agree with Souter and Breyer on the remand issue, not remanding almost certainly didn’t change the final result.

[NewYorkExpress]

I'm astonished Bush v. Gore is in the minority so far.

The Supreme Court should never be in the business of picking the President.

What exactly does “never be in the business of picking the President” mean? No judicial relief related to elections at all? Or something more specific?

A lot of people hate on Bush v Gore without really understanding what the case was about, and while I agree with Souter and Breyer on the remand issue, not remanding almost certainly didn’t change the final result.

Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure Congress is supposed to decide disputed Presidential Elections, not the Supreme Court.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm astonished Bush v. Gore is in the minority so far.

The Supreme Court should never be in the business of picking the President.

What exactly does “never be in the business of picking the President” mean? No judicial relief related to elections at all? Or something more specific?

A lot of people hate on Bush v Gore without really understanding what the case was about, and while I agree with Souter and Breyer on the remand issue, not remanding almost certainly didn’t change the final result.

Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure Congress is supposed to decide disputed Presidential Elections, not the Supreme Court.

As in a tie in the electoral college? Sure (the House, specifically).

But when you’re talking about an issue related to the Equal Protection Clause, I don’t understand how you can say the Supreme Court has no business being involved. If you remove any judicial involvement from laws related to elections and election administration, you pretty much destroy enforceability of the Voting Rights Act.

[NewYorkExpress]

I'm astonished Bush v. Gore is in the minority so far.

The Supreme Court should never be in the business of picking the President.

What exactly does “never be in the business of picking the President” mean? No judicial relief related to elections at all? Or something more specific?

A lot of people hate on Bush v Gore without really understanding what the case was about, and while I agree with Souter and Breyer on the remand issue, not remanding almost certainly didn’t change the final result.

Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure Congress is supposed to decide disputed Presidential Elections, not the Supreme Court.

As in a tie in the electoral college? Sure (the House, specifically).

But when you’re talking about an issue related to the Equal Protection Clause, I don’t understand how you can say the Supreme Court has no business being involved. If you remove any judicial involvement from laws related to elections and election administration, you pretty much destroy enforceability of the Voting Rights Act.

Except you could argue there was no equal protection issue...except for the fact Gore didn't insist on a statewide recount. (If he had, he probably would've won Florida on that recount).