# What 3 SCOTUS decisions do you overturn? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 8, 2011, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706 "2011-02-08T22:36:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/41 "2011-02-09T18:17:08Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I think the ship pretty much sailed on that one when the government compensated the descendants of internees in the 80s. Yes and no. The government did not have to compensate anyone and, in theory since the precedent exists, the US could (for example) decide to intern all people of Middle Eastern descent in the US. That the US _might_ reimburse their descendants in 2060 does not change anything. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/42 "2011-02-09T18:19:56Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Yes and no. > > The government did not have to compensate anyone and, in theory since the precedent exists, the US could (for example) decide to intern all people of Middle Eastern descent in the US. That the US _might_ reimburse their descendants in 2060 does not change anything. But nor does overturning _Korematsu_. It isn’t like overturning it is going to be replaced with a Supreme Court decision saying “race based internment can never happen.” Any future attempt to intern based on, say, Middle Eastern descent, will be analyzed under strict scrutiny, whether _Korematsu_ is ruled invalid or not. Because that is the current state of the law. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/43 "2011-02-09T18:21:52Z")
No, but I think it’s pretty much taken as read that Korematsu isn’t good law anymore. ETA: **villa** put it much better. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/44 "2011-02-09T18:24:08Z")
Don’t get me wrong - _Korematsu_ is a stain on the Supreme Court’s record, and I would heartily support a symbolic recognition that it was wrong when it happened (if that isn’t already in some decision). But I am not going to waste one of my magic four overturnings on a decision that has zero actual current day effect. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/45 "2011-02-09T18:30:47Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I thought it was a much bigger deal that they overturned the state court’s damage award when it was really none of their business. I actually quite like the idea of limiting punitive damages to a factor of ten. The fact that limiting punitive damages to a factor of ten may (or may) not be a good idea, doesn’t mean it’s in the Constitution. Sounds like they were legislating from the bench. More problematic is the decision doesn’t even announce a clear rule, (such as a 10 to 1 ratio) but hints that “maybe 1 to 1 is the limit in some cases,” and “4 to 1” seems like a good limit too." Lower courts are all over the map. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/46 "2011-02-09T18:38:56Z")
About Morse v. Frederick and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier In legal principal, I agree with _Morse_ (in loco parantis, needing to prevent advocacy of illegal acts, etc.) but to be honest, I don’t see how all of that is reflective of the facts of the case. Was it a school event? No Was it on school grounds? No Could it have reasonable been interpreted as satire? Sure Did the principal have an alternative agenda? Hmmmm seizing the sign then doubling the suspension for quoting Jefferson. Seems like this lady’s idea of the 1st amendment is you have the right to STFU. About _Hazelwood_, the district owns the paper (and no, I refuse to use the \*Dole v SD \*doctrine of we pay for it so we can control it) but an editor has got to have the right to say no whether at school or private newspaper. I don’t see a 1st Amendment violation for a decision-maker saying it’s not appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/47 "2011-02-09T18:42:59Z")
The idea that excessive fines might violate the Due Process Clause isn’t a new one. Goes back at least to 1909 (Waters-Pierce Oil v. Texas, 212 U.S. 86). ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/48 "2011-02-09T18:50:55Z")
> [@villa](#): > > But nor does overturning _Korematsu_. It isn’t like overturning it is going to be replaced with a Supreme Court decision saying “race based internment can never happen.” Any future attempt to intern based on, say, Middle Eastern descent, will be analyzed under strict scrutiny, whether _Korematsu_ is ruled invalid or not. Because that is the current state of the law. IIRC even the majority decision in _Korematsu_ suggested they didn’t like it but felt they had to cede that decision to the other parts of the government. I think what this and other decisions (such as Roe or Heller or Citizens United to name a few) indicate is that the “current state of the law” is whatever the SCOTUS says it is. Clearly they can back into a result one way or another if they want to. Nevermind how tortured the reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/49 "2011-02-09T18:53:53Z")
I once heard that a common traffic ticket was brought up to the supreme court and dismissed as trivial or some such legal term, possibly with a fine for wasting the courts time. I’m not sure if it’s true, but if so that is the one I’d like to see ‘overturned’ as hardly no other single issue the courts have heard effects so many people on a day to day ongoing basis and was perhaps (if this case really existed) one of the greatest uses of time the courts could have spent, pretty much their primary function, but blew it. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/50 "2011-02-09T19:02:44Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > IIRC even the majority decision in _Korematsu_ suggested they didn’t like it but felt they had to cede that decision to the other parts of the government. > > I think what this and other decisions (such as Roe or Heller or Citizens United to name a few) indicate is that the “current state of the law” is whatever the SCOTUS says it is. Clearly they can back into a result one way or another if they want to. Nevermind how tortured the reasoning. Well, if that is the case, then it shows even more why overturning it is a meaningless gesture. _Korematsu_ or no _Korematsu_, if the Court feels it has to punt because it doesn’t have the army, it will. But my point is more general - _Korematsu_ didn’t say "it is legitimate for the government to intern people based on race. It said that in this current situation, such internment was permissible. And the Court has since developed a stringent test for when such discrimination based on race is permissible - the idea of strict scrutiny. That’s different to saying something like the abortion decisions should be overturned - there overturning has an important effect. It permits states to criminalize abortion where now they are not permitted to do so. And, once again, _Roe_ isn’t the current state of the law. [Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pennsylvania v. Casey](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey) is the abortion decision that people should aim at. Or not so much, because it puts a pretty hefty dent in the rights guaranteed under _Roe_. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/51 "2011-02-09T19:05:07Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > I once heard that a common traffic ticket was brought up to the supreme court and dismissed as trivial or some such legal term, possibly with a fine for wasting the courts time. I’m not sure if it’s true, but if so that is the one I’d like to see ‘overturned’ as hardly no other single issue the courts have heard effects so many people on a day to day ongoing basis and was perhaps (if this case really existed) one of the greatest uses of time the courts could have spent, pretty much their primary function, but blew it. If such a case existed… As regards the Supreme Court, how is it “pretty much their [_sic_] primary function” to review traffic tickets? What federal question is present there? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/52 "2011-02-09T19:19:33Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Well, if that is the case, then it shows even more why overturning it is a meaningless gesture. _Korematsu_ or no _Korematsu_, if the Court feels it has to punt because it doesn’t have the army, it will. But my point is more general - _Korematsu_ didn’t say "it is legitimate for the government to intern people based on race. It said that in this current situation, such internment was permissible. And the Court has since developed a stringent test for when such discrimination based on race is permissible - the idea of strict scrutiny. > > That’s different to saying something like the abortion decisions should be overturned - there overturning has an important effect. It permits states to criminalize abortion where now they are not permitted to do so. > > And, once again, _Roe_ isn’t the current state of the law. [Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pennsylvania v. Casey](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey) is the abortion decision that people should aim at. Or not so much, because it puts a pretty hefty dent in the rights guaranteed under _Roe_. This shows again that the court can go pretty much anywhere it damn well feels like. _Casey_ could have re-affirmed Roe, expanded on Roe, ended Roe completely or diminished Roe to some extent. I have no doubt you could sit any SCOTUS justice down and, as a practice exercise, have them come up with a legal rationale that would support any of those outcomes. And Strict Scrutiny is hardly unassailable. Scalia and Thomas, off the top of my head, are two who seem to very much dislike it. If they were participating in this thread they may well list _Korematsu_ just to get rid of that. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/53 "2011-02-09T19:29:51Z")
> [@villa](#): > > If such a case existed… > > As regards the Supreme Court, how is it “pretty much their [_sic_] primary function” to review traffic tickets? What federal question is present there? What if it was issued by tribal police in a federal park that crosses state lines bordering the reservation which straddles the US-Canadian border? And the person was stopped by the policeman in the first place because she was a black lesbian Santeria worshiper who was participating in religious animal sacrifice in a government car on her way to a field she owned (which the state was going to buy using their eminent domain power) to harvest wheat, which was for her own use, in order to take home to her employee, a baker who she had contracted with to work for more than the statutory maximum number of hours a week, in order to make bread for the National Guardsmen that the governor had put in her house? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/54 "2011-02-09T19:33:16Z")
I withdraw my objection in shame, and resign from the bar. ---
**Author:** ![Invisible\_Chimp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f05b48/32.png) [@Invisible\_Chimp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Invisible_Chimp)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/55 "2011-02-09T19:59:57Z")
> [@villa](#): > > And, once again, _Roe_ isn’t the current state of the law. [Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pennsylvania v. Casey](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey) is the abortion decision that people should aim at. Or not so much, because it puts a pretty hefty dent in the rights guaranteed under _Roe_. But if you get rid of Casey, wouldn’t that just reset things to Roe, the previous precedent? If your aim is to eliminate abortion rights, shouldn’t you go after the case that started it all? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/56 "2011-02-09T20:00:04Z")
There was actually a recent Canadian Supreme Court case that dealt with a traffic ticket (really language issues, but. . .) [http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/04/supreme-court-sides-with-unilingual-traffic-ticket-claim/](http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/04/supreme-court-sides-with-unilingual-traffic-ticket-claim/) And a Washington State Supreme Court case about a traffic ticket. [http://www.thenewstribune.com/2009/12/08/984921/man-appeals-traffic-ticket-all.html](http://www.thenewstribune.com/2009/12/08/984921/man-appeals-traffic-ticket-all.html) Then, there are of course the various traffic stop cases and to what constitutes a search, like Terry or Whren, but I don’t know what case **kanicbird** is talking about. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/57 "2011-02-09T20:02:21Z")
> [@Invisible\_Chimp](#): > > But if you get rid of Casey, wouldn’t that just reset things to Roe, the previous precedent? If your aim is to eliminate abortion rights, shouldn’t you go after the case that started it all? Well if you get rid of _Roe_, then _Casey_ still controls. So sort of both I guess. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/58 "2011-02-09T20:08:24Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > I would have to look at every Supreme Court case ever to decide which 3 are the most wrong, but this was the case I thought of when I read the OP. The more I read it the more baffled I am. I cannot for the life of me understand it. I’m counting the number of times each case is mentioned. So far, this one is in the lead. I’m really surprised, because when the decision was first made I could have sworn that most dopers were defending it, saying that circuit and appeals courts have been ruling this way for a long time. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/59 "2011-02-09T20:13:37Z")
_Kelo_ is going to be popular on this because it fits the view of both the left and the right about the Court. The left thinks the Court exists to benefit big business (and compel poor property owners to sell their granny’s house to the nasty development corporation) while the right thinks the Court exists to espand the power of big government over the individual (and permit the government to compel a poor property owner to sell his granny’s house). _Kelo_ leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but I don’t know enough about the area of law to make an informed coment on it. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/60 "2011-02-09T20:24:39Z")
I’ve counted the number of times a case was mentioned (as of post 59) and so far, the one in the lead is, _ **Kelo vs City of New London** _, with 8 Votes. I’m shocked, for reasons mentioned in post 58. Second place is _ **Roe v. Wade** _ with 5 votes. Again, I’m shocked. Most people here are pro choice. Third place is a tie between _ **Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company** _ and _ **Citizens United v Federal Election Commission** _ with 4 votes each. _ **Slaughterhouse** _ and _ **State Farm v. Campbell** _ each have 3 votes. _ **Morse v. Frederick** _ and _ **Bush v Gore** _ each have 2 votes. And all the rest have only 1 vote. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706.md?page=4)