The Senate is allowed to make its own rules of procedure. The President cannot be given powers except those which are specifically enumerated.
Is it too late to revisit Bush v. Gore?
Santa Clara Co. v. South Pacific Railroad - People have already mentioned why
Citizens United v. FEC - Also already mentioned
July 2 Cases - Reinstated the death penalty. The death penalty is barbaric and should be abolished in the US like in the rest of the civilized world.
Language Log had a bit about this. It boggles my mind that anyone, much less a Supreme Court justice, could interpret the kid’s actions as promoting anything. He was clearly engaging in absurdism.
Thanks.
Kelo v New London and Santa Clara Co. v SPR are the top 2 easily. Morse v Frederick is up there too. Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier was decided correctly, IMO, as was Bush v Gore. So my third choice will be reserved for whatever case overturns Heller.
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.
Screw it, I am taking a fourth. And you can’t stop me.
Wisconsin v. Yoder - wrongly decided it was. Enshrined the principle that religious beliefs (a) should trump generally applicable laws; and (b) can be used to subject children to actions which would be considered abusive if not motivated by religion. Some people (most notably me) think it has been overturned by Smith, but that case was pretty clear it wasn’t overruling Yoder. Not sure how the two can be seen as compatible, though.
Kelo
Citizens United
Roe v Wade
I don’t really give a shit about Kelo. I think it was a bad decision, but it’s unlikely to affect me.
I’m rolling Santa Clara v. Pacific and Citizens United into one, and overruling both. Fuck corporate personhood generally.
That, and the Slaughterhouse cases.
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.
I’m pro-choice, but I really like the diverse and complex views that your post displays. I wish more people avoided the “straight-ticket” style of thinking.
Me too, but I’d trample all over students’ free speech rights in exchange for abortion rights.
I know. Allowing tax deductions on mortgage interest just burns me up! I’m glad that I’m not the only one who sees how that strikes at our society’s heart.
I think he’s talking about the dicta.
Roe versus Wade - The original case involved control of one’s body but by taking on the case the Supreme Court created law absent one involving the definition of life. It was not their decision to make. While I think they went about it as best they could it was something that should have been decided by law makers.
Kelo vs City of New London - The constitution was clear on this. They essentially removed eminent domain from the constitution.
Maybe I am missing something but I do not see reason to get unduly fussed about Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier.
As far as I can tell the school acts as the editor of the paper. Any publication will have an editorial policy. No one would make a case that journalists were being censored if, say, The New Republic refused to publish a particular piece that was too conservative for their tastes. Likewise if, say, the American Spectator refused to publish some liberal piece. The magazine editors can make editorial decisions on what they want to publish. It has always been thus. No problems there.
The students do not own the school newspaper. The school does and the school administration is responsible for deciding what can and what cannot be published. If the students don’t like it there are other outlets to publish their writing and/or they can petition the school board/admin to change policy.
Probably, but first, that’s only dicta, and second, all the dicta did was extend an already existing notion of corporate personhood under the 14th amendment. I’d think if corporate personhood really bothered somebody, they’d want to overturn Dartmouth College instead of Southern Pacific.
Anyway, my three, butting aside oneoffs and overturned cases are:
US v Miller (the 1976 one dealing with privacy, not the gun one)
Buck v Bell
Korematsu v US
Kind of pointless to overturn Korematsu now. And it did give race protected-class status.
The specific circumstances don’t exist anymore, but the precedent that it’s constitutional for the military to detain US citizens during time of war merely because of their racial or ethnic origin remains, and I think that’s a bad precedent to have.
I think the ship pretty much sailed on that one when the government compensated the descendants of internees in the 80s.