# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2011, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/61 "2011-02-09T20:25:10Z")
\*Kelo \*wasn’t a choice for me, not because it wasn’t one of the biggest turds the SCOTUS has dropped, but rather because using my newfound dictator-of-the-law status on Kelo would be pointles - states have done a wonderful job of fixing the damage themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Cyningablod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc29f/32.png) [@Cyningablod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyningablod)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2011, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/62 "2011-02-10T00:05:52Z")
> [@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? **Villa** , why did you put a [sic] after **kanicbird** ’s use of the personal pronoun “their”? He was using the correct spelling, for the context. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2011, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/63 "2011-02-10T01:06:16Z")
> [@Cyningablod](#): > > **Villa** , why did you put a [sic] after **kanicbird** ’s use of the personal pronoun “their”? > > He was using the correct spelling, for the context. Actually, it was a bad mistake on my part, though I didn’t think it was a mistake of spelling. I read it as him talking about the Supreme Court, which would be “its.” However, rereading it, he said… > [@](#): > > one of the greatest uses of time the courts could have spent, pretty much their primary function, but blew it. My only excuse is that it is a mistake I always make (English habit of using the plural for singular collective nouns), and I spent half of the day editing a brief where I had to take it out. But I blew it big time that time. So, sorry **kanicbird**. ---
**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 10, 2011, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/64 "2011-02-10T15:13:54Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Well if you get rid of _Roe_, then _Casey_ still controls. So sort of both I guess. Well, that’s assuming that Roe or Casey just gets overturned in the simplest possible sense: “fuck that noise”. Presumably the overturning Court would establish some kind of rule to replace it. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2011, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/65 "2011-02-10T15:34:58Z")
Well no - because that isn’t what anti-choice folks **claim** to be looking for, or at least the smart ones. Generally speaking they said that abortion should be a state decision. They might argue in favor of an amendment to the federal constitution granting rights to 3 week old fetuses, but they don’t argue in favor of a Supreme Court ruling that no state may permit abortions. ---
**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 10, 2011, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/66 "2011-02-10T15:39:56Z")
Yes, but if you asked them what they’d do given the choice (perhaps in a thread like this one) they’d ban abortion entirely by any means necessary. It’s the same impulse that makes us lefties all states-rightists when it comes to gay marriage. That said, by “some kind of rule” I meant something along the lines of “states cannot ban medically necessary abortions, or abortions of pregnancies caused by rape or incest” or somesuch (though I maintain that such exceptions are completely illogical based on the stated views of anti-abortion people). ---
**Author:** ![MilTan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/71e660/32.png) [@MilTan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MilTan)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2011, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/67 "2011-02-10T15:46:31Z")
> [@Nobody](#): > > Second place is _ **Roe v. Wade** _ with 5 votes. Again, I’m shocked. Most people here are pro choice. I don’t find this surprising at all. If you’re pro-life, _Roe_ has to be pretty close to the top of the list of “hated SCOTUS decisions,” so of course you’re going to decide to overturn it. But there’s really no equivalent case that a pro-choice advocate would want to overturn (maybe _Gonzales v. Carhart_, which was IMO a travesty, but small potatoes compared to most liberal hobbyhorses). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2011, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/68 "2011-02-10T15:49:25Z")
I’ll settle for one: [_Buckley v. Valeo._](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo) Fuck [_Citizens United v. FEC,_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission) the problem lies several steps further back, in _Buckley,_ when the SCOTUS ruled that spending money to influence elections is a constitutionally protected form of free speech. **That** has to go, before we can call America anything but a plutocracy. From [_The Next American Nation,_](http://www.amazon.com/NEXT-AMERICAN-NATION-Nationalism-Revolution/dp/0684825031/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214163307&sr=8-1) by Michael Lind (The Free Press, 1995), pp. 256-259 (from before the McCain-Feingold Bill, but I don’t think the picture has changed all that much since it passed): > [@](#): > > Campaign financing is by far the most important mechanism for overclass influence in government. The real two-party system in the United States consists of the party of voters and the tiny but influential party of donors. The donor party in the United States is made up of an extraordinarily small number of citizens. In 1988, according to one study, only 10.2 percent of the American public made a contribution to a candidate, party, or partisan group. . . . The group of large political donors is a still more exclusive club. According to a study by Citizen Action, in the 1989-90 election cycle only 179,677 individual donors gave contributions greater than $200 to a federal candidate, political action committee (PAC), or party: “Thirty-four percent of the money spent by federal candidates was directly contributed by no more than one-tenth of one percent of the voting age population.” One may reasonably doubt that this one tenth of one percent is representative of the electorate or the population at large. > > \ > > Special interests buy favors from congressmen and presidents through political action committees (PACs), devices by which groups like corporations, professional associations, trade unions, investment banking groups – can pool their money and give $10,000 per election to each House and Senate candidate. Today there are more than 4,000 Political Action Committees (PACs) of various kinds registered with the Federal Election Commission; in 1974, when they were sanctioned by law, there were only 500. PAC money is driving campaign costs to new heights. In 1992, the average Senate incumbent spent more than $3.6 million for re-election; that is the equivalent of raising $12,000 a week in a single six-year term. Members of Congress, by comparison, spend only an average of $557,403 to be re-elected – a “mere” $5,000 a week for a two-year term. The average cost of a House campaign has risen to this level from $140,000 in 1980 – and $52,000 in 1974. > > The chief beneficiaries of rising campaign costs and PAC contributions have been incumbents. In 1972, 52 cents of the average PAC dollar went to incumbents, compared to 25 cents to challengers (the rest went to candidates for open seats); in the 1988 House elections, incumbents received 84.4 cents of each PAC dollar and challengers only 8.6 cents. It makes more sense for lobbies to buy access to established members of Congress and senators – particularly those with important leadership positions – than to fund challengers, who, if elected, would have no seniority and little influence. . . . Former Senator Barry Goldwater has lamented, “The Founding Fathers would frown in their graves if they saw us rationing candidacies sheerly on the basis of money: who has – or can raise – the millions necessary to run for office.” > > Democrats, when they were members of the majority party, received more PAC money than Republicans, though both parties are saturated with it. Contrary to conservative claims that liberal lobby groups dominate Congress, PAC funds come overwhelmingly from business: in 1990, 65 percent of PAC contributions came from business PACs, compared to 24 percent from labor and only 11 percent from ideological groups (including conservative as well as liberal pressure groups). “At one point,” John Judis has pointed out, “the American Petroleum Institute employed more lobbyists in Washington than the entire labor movement.” They don’t come much more libertarian than Goldwater, and even he was appalled at this state of affairs. From the same book, pp. 311-313: > [@](#): > > Today’s U.S. government is democratic in form but plutocratic in substance. . . . In a misguided 1976 decision, Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court held that Congress could not limit spending by rich Americans promoting their own candidacies. This decision was to the equalization of voting power what Dred Scott was to abolitionism. In The Yale Law Review, Jamin Raskin and John Boniface have argued that political candidates in the United States must win a “wealth primary.” Candidates without enormous amounts of money, either from their own fortunes or from rich individuals and special interest groups, cannot hope to win the party primaries – much less general elections. Indeed, the Buckley decision is one reason why more than half the members of the Senate today are millionaires. . . . > > It is time to build a wall of separation between check and state. Curing the disease of plutocratic politics requires a correct diagnosis of its cause: the costs of political advertising. The basic problem is that special interests buy access and favors by donating the money needed for expensive political advertising in the media. Elaborate schemes governing the flow of money do nothing to address the central problem: paid political advertising. Instead of devising unworkable limits on campaign financing that leave the basic system intact, we should cut the Gordian knot of campaign corruption by simply outlawing paid political advertising on behalf of any candidate for public office. The replacement of political advertising by free informational public service notices in the electronic and print media would level the playing field of politics and kill off an entire parasitic industry of media consultants and spin doctors. > > An outright ban on paid political advertising and the imposition of free time requirements on the media are radical measures, but nothing less is necessary if we are to prevent our government from continuing to be sold to the highest bidders. **The argument against strict public regulation of money in politics is based on a false analogy between free spending and free speech protected under the First Amendment. The analogy is false, because limits on campaign finance do not address the content of speech – only its volume, as it were. It is not an infringement on free speech to say that, in a large public auditorium, Douglas will not be allowed to use a microphone unless Lincoln can as well.** \* > > \*A much more compelling analogy would be between the electoral process and the judicial system, with the electorate playing the role of the jury. In our system of trial by jury, there are elaborate rules governing the presentation of evidence to the jury by plaintiff and defendant (the “candidates”). If our judicial system were organized the way our judicial system is, then rich candidates would be allowed to buy time before the jury. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, in one Senate election, outspent his opponent by 300 to 1; the equivalent, in the judicial system, would be allowing a rich defendant to buy, say, six months to present his side of the case, while the poor plaintiff might be able to purchase only twenty minutes for his side. ---
**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 10, 2011, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/69 "2011-02-10T16:02:38Z")
> [@MilTan](#): > > I don’t find this surprising at all. If you’re pro-life, _Roe_ has to be pretty close to the top of the list of “hated SCOTUS decisions,” so of course you’re going to decide to overturn it. But there’s really no equivalent case that a pro-choice advocate would want to overturn (maybe _Gonzales v. Carhart_, which was IMO a travesty, but small potatoes compared to most liberal hobbyhorses). Hell, _I_ hate Roe v. Wade, and I’m practically a pro-choice absolutist. Sociologically, I think it was an absolutely necessary step towards progress in the US. Legally, I think it was wrongly decided. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2011, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/70 "2011-02-10T16:03:39Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Hell, _I_ hate Roe v. Wade, and I’m practically a pro-choice absolutist. Sociologically, I think it was an absolutely necessary step towards progress in the US. Legally, I think it was wrongly decided. Should’ve been rooted in the Second Amendment. ---
**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 10, 2011, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/71 "2011-02-10T16:13:30Z")
The Right Not To Bear Arms. Or Legs. Or Itty-Bitty Heads and Torsos And So On. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2011, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/72 "2011-02-10T16:15:42Z")
I was actually being semi-serious. The right to self defense. ---
**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 10, 2011, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/73 "2011-02-10T16:18:00Z")
I… Th… You should really start another thread about that. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2011, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/74 "2011-02-10T16:53:42Z")
I’ll offer Kelo, Wickard, and West Coast Hotel v. Parrish ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2011, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/75 "2011-02-10T16:53:50Z")
_Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly_ — prior to this case, the pleading standard in federal cases had been notice pleading, _Twombly_ changed it to require plaintiffs to furnish enough facts to make a complaint “plausible” to federal judges. Unfortunately, federal judges, so very often rich, white, middle-aged men, have a bit more skepticism with respect to accusations of employment discrimination and profit-motivated malfeasance than is perhaps due. See _Ashcroft v. Iqbal_ for some of the mischief that _Twombly_ has wrought. Wikipedia includes the following gloss on _Twombly_: “This latter change in the law [regarding the pleading standard] has been met with a great deal of controversy in legal circles, evidenced by a rather saucy dissenting opinion from Justice Stevens.” _Boy Scouts of America v. Dale_ — **villa** has talked about _Yoder_ (a case that actually does not perturb me as much as it does him) providing an escape hatch from disliked laws on the basis of their offending religious sensibilities, but _BSA v. Dale_ is by far a bigger offender. In the first place, \*Yoder \*is DOA post-_Smith_. In the second place, courts applying _Yoder_ applied far more rigorous scrutiny in determining whether the non-compliance issued from real-deal, well-substantiated, long-term religious beliefs. _BSA v. Dale_ only requires some vague notion of “expressive association.” A _Yoder_ plaintiff had to make a showing with respect to several factors on a long list of potential characteristics of religions to separate genuine religions/deeply held beliefs of conscience versus mere pretexts. Under _BSA v. Dale_, you just have to make a few unsupported assertions about what your organization stands for. And just for good measure, let’s get rid of _Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas_, a case which blessed the practice of fancy suburbs passing various overbearing occupancy laws (such as no more than two unrelated persons living in a single home) in order to exlcude undesirables. ---
**Author:** ![Jenaroph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Jenaroph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jenaroph)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2011, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/76 "2011-02-10T17:07:28Z")
> [@elfkin477](#): > > If as little as 1% of abortions are done on viable/near-viable babies (20+ weeks), that’s still 10,000 babies a year. Wait, what? - you think there are 10,000,000 abortions done yearly in the US? Anyway, my own #1 choice would be the Citizens United case. I’d have to think on the others. ---
**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 10, 2011, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/77 "2011-02-10T17:13:41Z")
\*Twombly \*is bad, no doubt. But at least if you’re aware of it, you can take pains to avoid the problem. It’s maddening because it truly was a “solution” in search of a problem. Notice pleading worked perfectly well for generations. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2011, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/78 "2011-02-10T17:21:32Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > _Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly_ — prior to this case, the pleading standard in federal cases had been notice pleading, _Twombly_ changed it to require plaintiffs to furnish enough facts to make a complaint “plausible” to federal judges. Unfortunately, federal judges, so very often rich, white, middle-aged men, have a bit more skepticism with respect to accusations of employment discrimination and profit-motivated malfeasance than is perhaps due. See _Ashcroft v. Iqbal_ for some of the mischief that _Twombly_ has wrought. Wikipedia includes the following gloss on _Twombly_: “This latter change in the law [regarding the pleading standard] has been met with a great deal of controversy in legal circles, evidenced by a rather saucy dissenting opinion from Justice Stevens.” I hadn’t considered _Twombly_, because it tends to benefit my clients. In antitrust law I think it has a good effect - treble damages make plaintiffs willing to roll the dice in groundless complaints. I hadn’t considered it in other areas. > [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > _Boy Scouts of America v. Dale_ — **villa** has talked about _Yoder_ (a case that actually does not perturb me as much as it does him) providing an escape hatch from disliked laws on the basis of their offending religious sensibilities, but _BSA v. Dale_ is by far a bigger offender. In the first place, \*Yoder \*is DOA post-_Smith_. In the second place, courts applying _Yoder_ applied far more rigorous scrutiny in determining whether the non-compliance issued from real-deal, well-substantiated, long-term religious beliefs. _BSA v. Dale_ only requires some vague notion of “expressive association.” A _Yoder_ plaintiff had to make a showing with respect to several factors on a long list of potential characteristics of religions to separate genuine religions/deeply held beliefs of conscience versus mere pretexts. Under _BSA v. Dale_, you just have to make a few unsupported assertions about what your organization stands for. _Dale_ is certainly horrible too. I wish _Yoder_ were dead, and it certainly should be after _Smith_ (for proof, read my law school seminar paper 😃 ), but there is a surprising amount of dispute over it. What you see as a saving grace of _Yoder_, however, I see as a further weakness in it. It sucks the judicial system into determining what is a religious belief and what isn’t. Which will, I think, inevitably bias things in favor of established beliefs. Which to me runs against the entire purpose of the religion clauses, which I see as defending minority and unpopular beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/79 "2011-02-11T03:15:59Z")
> [@Nobody](#): > > 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. You remember wrong. > **[SCOTUS: Cities can seize homes for economic development](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=322457)** > > SCOTUS: Cities can seize homes for economic development. This just strikes me as seriously fucked up. How in the world can this happen? I really don’t want to be one of those posters that just drops a link to a controversial news story and then... > **[Progressives - How many support the SC's ruling on Eminent Domain?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=322618)** > > The bashing has begun in response to the Supreme’s ruling clearing the way for cities siezing property in the name of the principle of eminent domain. Given the records of the 5 justices who assented, this is seen as typical of “liberals” or... ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706/80 "2011-02-11T03:58:34Z")
I guess so. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-3-scotus-decisions-do-you-overturn/570706.md?page=5)