If you could bring back an over-turned Supreme Court ruling...

[TPIG]

What would it be?

I would bring back the ruling from Lochner v. New York which claimed that a "liberty to contract" (AKA to the ability buy and sell labor free from government regulation) is an inherent right of Americans.

[Dr. MB]

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. FEC, overturned by Citizens United

[The Govanah Jake]

McConnell v. FEC

[Blackacre]

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. FEC, overturned by Citizens United

[TheLeftwardTide]

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. FEC, overturned by Citizens United

[MarkD]

Bowers v. Hardwick, which was overturned - wrongly - by Lawrence v. Texas.

I'm gay, and this issue has mattered a whole lot to me. There was a time when I wanted Bowers to be overturned, but that desire only last about 3-4 years, until I started studying constitutional law a lot. By 1990 or so, I realized that Bowers had been decided correctly. The opinion wasn't perfect, but the imperfections in it were not fatal to the basic decision.

One very important thing that was said in Bowers was:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now that Bowers has been overturned, we might as well "reverse" that quote.

Fake Quote
The Court is not the slightest bit vulnerable, but it certainly is illegitimate, when it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little or no cognizable roots in the language or design of the Constitution ... There is, therefore, no more resistance to expanding the substantive reach of the Due Process Clauses, particularly since it requires redefining the category of rights deemed to be fundamental. So the Judiciary is necessarily taking to itself authority to govern the country without express constitutional authority.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

McConnell v. FEC

Roe v. Wade

Furman v. Georgia

[IndustrialJustice]

What would it be?

I would bring back the ruling from Lochner v. New York which claimed that a "liberty to contract" (AKA to the ability buy and sell labor free from government regulation) is an inherent right of Americans.

*AKA the constitutional enshrinement of inherently unequal bargaining power between employer and employee.

Anyway, the liberty of contract doctrine was subject to plenty of government regulation, so long as the laws were "preserving the public health, safety or morals" under the state's police powers. See, e.g., Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366 (1898) (upholding hours and safety regulations of coal miners). But reactionaries like David Brewer and Rufus Peckham during this time would have invalidated, among other things, municipal regulations of waste collection; the practice of mandatory smallpox vaccination; laws forbidding employers from paying their workers in credits redeemable only at company stores; and, in Brewer’s case, the very concept of progressive taxation (all dissents).

Thankfully, these two became judicial pariahs for quite some time, but have recently seen some rehabilitation by libertarian academics.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

McConnell v. FEC

Roe v. Wade

Furman v. Georgia

Ahh, you're posting from 5 years in the future

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

McConnell v. FEC

Roe v. Wade

Furman v. Georgia

Ahh, you're posting from 5 years in the future

Roe v. Wade is not going to be overturned, if it didn't happen under Bush II or Reagan, both of whom were more strongly socially conservative than Trump, it isn't going to happen under Trump either.

[IndustrialJustice]

Casey effectively gutted much of Roe by throwing out its trimester-based framework. I assume that's what Solid4096 meant.

[MarkD]

Casey effectively gutted much of Roe by throwing out its trimester-based framework. I assume that's what Solid4096 meant.

Another important difference between Casey and Roe is that Roe labeled the right to abortion a "fundamental right" and within the concept of the "right to privacy," but Casey said the right to abortion is a "liberty interest" that cannot be "unduly burdened." A fundamental right is just as important as one of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and is the next best thing to an absolute right, but a "liberty" that cannot be "unduly burdened" is significantly less than a "fundamental right."

Be that as it may, since Casey did not overturn Roe, Solid4096's post about Roe does not make much sense under the question asked in this thread.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Casey effectively gutted much of Roe by throwing out its trimester-based framework. I assume that's what Solid4096 meant.

Parental Consent Requirements, Hyde Amendment, etc all overturned parts of the Roe ruling.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Casey effectively gutted much of Roe by throwing out its trimester-based framework. I assume that's what Solid4096 meant.

Parental Consent Requirements, Hyde Amendment, etc all overturned parts of the Roe ruling.

That's not how it works.  Legislation can't overturn a Supreme Court ruling.

I might say in answer to this question Schecter Poultry Corporation v. United States,  which was effectively overturned by Wickard v Filburn (ruling that a farmer growing crops and feeding them to his animals could be regulated as "interstate commerce.")

[IndustrialJustice]

Casey effectively gutted much of Roe by throwing out its trimester-based framework. I assume that's what Solid4096 meant.

Parental Consent Requirements, Hyde Amendment, etc all overturned parts of the Roe ruling.

That's not how it works.  Legislation can't overturn a Supreme Court ruling.

I might say in answer to this question Schecter Poultry Corporation v. United States,  which was effectively overturned by Wickard v Filburn (ruling that a farmer growing crops and feeding them to his animals could be regulated as "interstate commerce.")

That's only half of the ruling in Schechter, and the Lochner-era Court's extremely narrow reading of the Commerce Clause was overturned a few years before Wickard. It was certainly dead by Jones & Laughlin.

Schechter's nondelegation precedent remains good law.

[politicallefty]

Bowers v. Hardwick, which was overturned - wrongly - by Lawrence v. Texas.

I'm gay, and this issue has mattered a whole lot to me. There was a time when I wanted Bowers to be overturned, but that desire only last about 3-4 years, until I started studying constitutional law a lot. By 1990 or so, I realized that Bowers had been decided correctly. The opinion wasn't perfect, but the imperfections in it were not fatal to the basic decision.

One very important thing that was said in Bowers was:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now that Bowers has been overturned, we might as well "reverse" that quote.

Fake Quote
The Court is not the slightest bit vulnerable, but it certainly is illegitimate, when it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little or no cognizable roots in the language or design of the Constitution ... There is, therefore, no more resistance to expanding the substantive reach of the Due Process Clauses, particularly since it requires redefining the category of rights deemed to be fundamental. So the Judiciary is necessarily taking to itself authority to govern the country without express constitutional authority.

I'm rather disturbed that someone that proclaims to be gay notes that decision as the worst. Surely, there has to be something worse than that? Do you view Obergefell the same way? And even if you don't, how do you view Justice O'Connor's concurrence in Lawrence?

[MarkD]

Bowers v. Hardwick, which was overturned - wrongly - by Lawrence v. Texas.

I'm gay, and this issue has mattered a whole lot to me. There was a time when I wanted Bowers to be overturned, but that desire only last about 3-4 years, until I started studying constitutional law a lot. By 1990 or so, I realized that Bowers had been decided correctly. The opinion wasn't perfect, but the imperfections in it were not fatal to the basic decision.

One very important thing that was said in Bowers was:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now that Bowers has been overturned, we might as well "reverse" that quote.

Fake Quote
The Court is not the slightest bit vulnerable, but it certainly is illegitimate, when it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little or no cognizable roots in the language or design of the Constitution ... There is, therefore, no more resistance to expanding the substantive reach of the Due Process Clauses, particularly since it requires redefining the category of rights deemed to be fundamental. So the Judiciary is necessarily taking to itself authority to govern the country without express constitutional authority.

I'm rather disturbed that someone that proclaims to be gay notes that decision as the worst. Surely, there has to be something worse than that? Do you view Obergefell the same way? And even if you don't, how do you view Justice O'Connor's concurrence in Lawrence?

O'Connor's concurring opinion in Lawrence was bad because she said something to the effect that we have never considered morality as sufficient justification for a law under equal protection rational basis review, as if that means that morality is not a sufficient justification. I could just about scream at her (1) that the Court has never even talked about morality being a justification for a law challenged under equal protection rational basis review, (2) just because the Court hasn't talked about it is no reason to say that morality isn't allowed, (3) in Bowers, which she joined, morality was clearly an allowable legislative purpose under due process rational basis review, so why wouldn't it also be an allowable legislative purpose under equal protection rational basis review?

I think Obergefell was wrongly decided too, but it did not make me as angry as Lawrence. I suppose one could say that Bush v. Gore comes very, very close to being one of the worst decisions the Court has ever rendered, but even that one did not make me as angry as Lawrence.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Casey effectively gutted much of Roe by throwing out its trimester-based framework. I assume that's what Solid4096 meant.

Parental Consent Requirements, Hyde Amendment, etc all overturned parts of the Roe ruling.

That's not how it works.  Legislation can't overturn a Supreme Court ruling.

I might say in answer to this question Schecter Poultry Corporation v. United States,  which was effectively overturned by Wickard v Filburn (ruling that a farmer growing crops and feeding them to his animals could be regulated as "interstate commerce.")

That's only half of the ruling in Schechter, and the Lochner-era Court's extremely narrow reading of the Commerce Clause was overturned a few years before Wickard. It was certainly dead by Jones & Laughlin.

Schechter's nondelegation precedent remains good law.

Jones & Laughlin dealt with labor relations for a corporation that operated across state and national boundaries.  That is a lot more justifiable than using the commerce clause for regulation of the kind of activity addressed by Schechter or Wickard. 

Lochner was fundamentally flawed in my view as it created a limit on the power of the individual states to regulate business that went far beyond the original meaning of the 14th amendment.

[Tintrlvr]

I'm not sure Chisholm v. Georgia is in the spirit of what we're supposed to be discussing, but I'm going with that.

[IndustrialJustice]

Jones & Laughlin dealt with labor relations for a corporation that operated across state and national boundaries.  That is a lot more justifiable than using the commerce clause for regulation of the kind of activity addressed by Schechter or Wickard.

The Court decided two cases on the same day as Jones & Laughlin--Fruehauf and Friedman-Harry Marks--that dealt with plants of only a few hundred workers each that had minimal interstate presences (if any), to which the Court upheld the use of the Commerce Clause anyway.

Again, conservatives like to use Wickard as some sort of rallying cry, but they lost the war long before that.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Jones & Laughlin dealt with labor relations for a corporation that operated across state and national boundaries.  That is a lot more justifiable than using the commerce clause for regulation of the kind of activity addressed by Schechter or Wickard.

The Court decided two cases on the same day as Jones & Laughlin--Fruehauf and Friedman-Harry Marks--that dealt with plants of only a few hundred workers each that had minimal interstate presences (if any), to which the Court upheld the use of the Commerce Clause anyway.

Again, conservatives like to use Wickard as some sort of rallying cry, but they lost the war long before that.

It's a very important "rallying cry" because of how directly the case opposes the concept of agrarian liberty as central to American identity or civilization itself. There's something obscene about state power micromanaging something so elemental as how much wheat one can grow for use on one's farm.

[Tintrlvr]

Jones & Laughlin dealt with labor relations for a corporation that operated across state and national boundaries.  That is a lot more justifiable than using the commerce clause for regulation of the kind of activity addressed by Schechter or Wickard.

The Court decided two cases on the same day as Jones & Laughlin--Fruehauf and Friedman-Harry Marks--that dealt with plants of only a few hundred workers each that had minimal interstate presences (if any), to which the Court upheld the use of the Commerce Clause anyway.

Again, conservatives like to use Wickard as some sort of rallying cry, but they lost the war long before that.

It's a very important "rallying cry" because of how directly the case opposes the concept of agrarian liberty as central to American identity or civilization itself. There's something obscene about state power micromanaging something so elemental as how much wheat one can grow for use on one's farm.

So... purely sentimental reasons with no legal value or relevance whatsoever? I mean, I get it, but you're not making the anti-Wickard position seem at all sympathetic.

I also thought of the rather obscure Dr. Miles case in antitrust, which was overturned only relatively recently. Vertical price-fixing ought to be per se illegal because there is no reasonable and efficient way for courts to impose any other sort of rule and no convincing argument for why a per se rule forbids situations that ought to be permitted.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Jones & Laughlin dealt with labor relations for a corporation that operated across state and national boundaries.  That is a lot more justifiable than using the commerce clause for regulation of the kind of activity addressed by Schechter or Wickard.

The Court decided two cases on the same day as Jones & Laughlin--Fruehauf and Friedman-Harry Marks--that dealt with plants of only a few hundred workers each that had minimal interstate presences (if any), to which the Court upheld the use of the Commerce Clause anyway.

Again, conservatives like to use Wickard as some sort of rallying cry, but they lost the war long before that.

It's a very important "rallying cry" because of how directly the case opposes the concept of agrarian liberty as central to American identity or civilization itself. There's something obscene about state power micromanaging something so elemental as how much wheat one can grow for use on one's farm.

So... purely sentimental reasons with no legal value or relevance whatsoever? I mean, I get it, but you're not making the anti-Wickard position seem at all sympathetic.

I also thought of the rather obscure Dr. Miles case in antitrust, which was overturned only relatively recently. Vertical price-fixing ought to be per se illegal because there is no reasonable and efficient way for courts to impose any other sort of rule and no convincing argument for why a per se rule forbids situations that ought to be permitted.

Sentiment is a reflection of human needs and values.  It's the reason we have inherited the idea of a private sphere that should be free from governmental and corporate control.  It is by no means irrelevant to law.  There is such a thing as scale and proportion when it comes to which things may considered a legitimate implementation of a legal premise.  I can't prove it of course but it's hard for me to imagine Brandeis going along with the Wickard ruling based on his writings and career.

[Kingpoleon]

Bowers v. Hardwick, which was overturned - wrongly - by Lawrence v. Texas.

I'm gay, and this issue has mattered a whole lot to me. There was a time when I wanted Bowers to be overturned, but that desire only last about 3-4 years, until I started studying constitutional law a lot. By 1990 or so, I realized that Bowers had been decided correctly. The opinion wasn't perfect, but the imperfections in it were not fatal to the basic decision.

One very important thing that was said in Bowers was:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now that Bowers has been overturned, we might as well "reverse" that quote.

Fake Quote
The Court is not the slightest bit vulnerable, but it certainly is illegitimate, when it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little or no cognizable roots in the language or design of the Constitution ... There is, therefore, no more resistance to expanding the substantive reach of the Due Process Clauses, particularly since it requires redefining the category of rights deemed to be fundamental. So the Judiciary is necessarily taking to itself authority to govern the country without express constitutional authority.

What do you think of O’Connor’s concurrence? It has much better ground to stand on than the majority opinion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[President Johnson]

I'm pretty sure some Trumpists, if you do a poll, would name Dred Scott v. Sandford.