These along with Roe v. Wade and Kelo v. City of New London
Manchurian Candidate: When fiction becomes real life. Thanks SCOTUS.
Kelo v. City of New London is pretty supremely dickish. The city can seize your private property/demolish your house not just for necessary municipal works but for private economic development.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Buncha cocks.
Ah yes, Kelo. The Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, decided that local governments can sieze your property, not for any public use, but so that they can sell it to another private party. Gosh, there’s no chance at all that this power might be abused. :rolleyes:
Not a Supreme Court decision, but a presidential candidate one. When GWB picked his running mate. That was a dick move.
When I read the thread title, I thought Clarence Thomas had bought a new house.
Nitpick. It ruled that Congress had exceed its power under the commerce clause as the child labor was wholly intrastate and only the products derived were used interstate. Therefore, Congress could not regulate the former.
What about when Richard Nixon got nominated three times? 
Nitpick of nitpicks: but what makes them D and R? I don’t think we know all their personal voting records and only assume, and D != liberal, as central Pennsylvania or WV will tell you. If it’s by who appointed them, then it should be 6 R 3 D, as Souter was a GHW Bush appointee, and apparently a registered Republican.
That was a tricky dick move.
I was going to say Roe vs Wade and I am not opposed to abortion. Lots of people think the Supreme Court was grasping at straws in that ruling regardless if they agree with the outcome or not. It was a badly handled case and the court just made stuff up to come to the conclusion they wanted.
Like Bush/Gore. For me, the verbiage in Bush/Gore that says that this ruling is not to be used as a precedent is admission that ‘we think we’re doing a dick move, and it’s 3 am.’
At least with Roe v. Wade, they acknowledged that the science available didn’t allow them to make a good decision as to whether a fetus at a given age had human rights.
Not that I would want to dredge up way-old shit from days long gone, but now you done done it! Without going into details and re-animating the old zombie dispute, yet I can’t resist remarking:
I never believed for one microsecond, even from Day 1, that GWB picked his running mate. I think, and always thought, GWB’s running mate picked GWB’s running mate. Furthermore, I felt, right from the day that GWB’s running mate first announced the choice of GWB’s running mate, that they two of them had had a pre-nuptial agreement all along for exactly that to happen. Yet I don’t recall much discussion of that theory in the media at the time (and I don’t know what was discussed on SDMB because I’m a recent newcomer here). But it’s grated on my nerves ever since.
As for general dickishness by SCOTUS (this thread IS about dickishness by SCOTUS, IIRC, right?), I’ll add in general that the current court does strike me as being profoundly partisan, and has produced some seriously corrupt (in the partisan sense, not in the accepting-bribes sense AFAIK) shit in the last 10 years or so, which enough other posters have mentioned here already, that I needn’t repeat them all.