A lot of debates on the Dope come down to SCOTUS cases and the “correctness” of the decisions both legally and morally. Today you have been appointed to unilaterally overturn 3 decisions that are still considered case law (so for example Plessey isn’t allowed since it was overturned by Brown. Another example would be *Bush v Gore *since it specifically is not precedent setting.) with no political repercussions I assume non-lawyers like me will tend to pick landmark cases whereas laywers may pick lesser known cases. Anyways, my 3:
Slaughterhouse Cases: A key componant of the 14th Amendment gone with a 5-4 vote. What I find unbelievable was that the 14th Amendment was written (and has been interpreted) to overrule *Dred Scott *in that state citizenship and federal citizenship are two separate entities, yet this decision relys on the old *Dred Scott *doctrine. Whether or not you agree with allowing illegal immigration, the fact remains that for many things there is no distinction between illegal immigrants, legal resident aliens and U.S. citizens. I blame that in part on this case.
NLRB v Jones & Laughlin: Although *Wickard v. Filburn *is the worst offender of Congress being able to use the ICC to regulate everything, it was this case that fundamentally changed the legal interpretation of the ICC.
South Dakota v. Dole: Congress can only act based on enumerated rights. While some may argue that the 10th Amendment was emasculated by *Grant v Lee *(1865), I would say that this case was the nail in the coffin for states rights. It basically allows Congress to exceeds its authority through legilation through pursestrings. It also made the overriding concern to be the “general welfare” and “federal interest” effectively eliminating the requirement that Congress legislate within their enumerated rights. The case at hand was drinking age but now it is education (NCLB), health care (Obamacare), and other. Basically, we would go back to the standard under Butler.
Slaughterhouse Cases. For all the reasons you said and more. It’s not only a horrible decision, it is incredibly broad ranging.
Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Counsel. For the concept of administrative deference. Why everyone seems to focus on the movement of power from the states to the federal level, but the voluntary and unconstitutional surrender of power by the legislature to the executive defeats me.
Chevron is probably not the worst offender, nor the one that would have most effect repealing. But I can’t think for a moment which one would. So count this as “whichever decision would cripple the administrative state the most.”
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife. Standing law is a disgraceful way for the Court to avoid its responsibilities to ensure government stays within its constitutional boundaries.
I can’t give citations as exact as the 1st two members who posted here,
but I think I can convey the drift.
(1) The decision rejecting presidential line-item veto.
(2) The decision premitting eminent domain siezure on behalf
of commerical development. (Popular with some municipalities
because shopping malls yield more tax revenue than homeowners)
(3) The decision rejecting argument that some punitive damage
awards should be considered a form of excessive fine.
Roe vs Wade
I’m prolife so a federal abortion law would always leave a bad taste in my mouth, but I would have been far happier if the law had built in restrictions against aborting viable babies. If as little as 1% of abortions are done on viable/near-viable babies (20+ weeks), that’s still 10,000 babies a year.
Kelo vs City of New London
Eminent domain should be a last resort for creating/expanding public works, and the power to take people’s property for gain should never be in the hands of private enterprise.
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
It’s been sixteen years since we (editors of a high school lit magazine) fought the school board over a similar decision, but it still chaps my hide that schools can freely censor student publications.
1*. State Farm v. Campbell. * (and by extenstion, the Exxon case) creating out of thin air a limitation on punitive damages. Scalia dissent gets it right.
The Utah Polygamy case I had to read in high school. I don’t see how the legislature has the right to out law what consenting adults want to do. (assuming consenting adults, of course).
The Bong Hits 4 Jesus case. I agree with the 9th Circuit. “A school cannot censor or punish students’ speech merely because the students advocate a position contrary to government policy,” wrote Judge Andrew Kleinfeld for the panel. Students, like real people, should have as many rights as possible, as long as serious government interest is not impacted. This is probably the worst decision of the three. Justice Stevens wrote:
Out of interest, where in the constitution does it contemplate permitting a line-item veto? I cannot remember the case name either, but it is a sound decision, whether you like the outcome or not.
Most of the SCOTUS cases I have problems with didn’t create or interpret laws in new ways which resulted in a “new” right being created, rather my problem cases are the ones which incorrectly (according to me) applied extant constitutional (or just plain jane “just society”) mandates, so “overturning” these cases won’t really get you anywhere closer to getting the right outcome.
However, my problem cases would be:
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company constitutional rights for corporations is gross
United States v. Drayton
*cops shouldn’t be able to pressure-but-not-quite-coerce you into ceding your 4th amendment rights *
Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. abhor private arbitration
if you’re going to claim some constitutional prohibition on line-item vetos, can we get some penumbration going on for the Senate’s debate & cloture rules, please
Well, the Court certainly seemed to think there was a constitutional problem with them. And they were right - Congress cannot surrender its powers to the Executive that way.
