Supreme Court Do-Ovah

[FA_Q2]

The fun part of the New London supreme court attack on property rights is that the company the city took the old lady's home to hand over to a builder never did put two sticks together. Let alone put up a tax-producing building.

Left CNL with a vacant lot worth jack-shit for tax purposes, less revenue than before and scared off countless who might have considered buying of building there.

My city tried that bullshit back in the mid-90's and the public outcry was so harsh the plan was scrapped and cost the mayor his job.

Good.

The people can - and do - sometimes deal with crappy decisions.

 

[Freewill]

If you could snap your fingers and change ONE US Supreme Court decision from any time in US history to your liking, which would you change and how and why?

Bush v. Gore...

Sorry, right triumphed over Gore trying to steal the election.

 

[Freewill]

Helvering v. Davis (1937). This ruling upheld the constituionality of the governement spending what ever it wanted along as it was for the general welfare.

This ruling usurps the enumeration of power laid down by the COTUS and killed the 10th amendment which limited the power of congress to that which is in the COTUS.

Since this ruling the government can and does spend on whatever it so pleases. It has lead to the destruction of society.

 

[Boss]

If you could snap your fingers and change ONE US Supreme Court decision from any time in US history to your liking, which would you change and how and why?

Roe v. Wade... not even close.

 

[The Rabbi]

There are more than just one and it is difficult to prioritize. Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005) would be high on the list.

The Interstate Commerce Clause gave congress the right “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes..” Sadly the Supreme Court has redefined the plain language of the Constitution to include the Governments ability to regulate not only interstate commerce, which is the flow of goods between the states, but anything that effects interstate commerce. The Court has even regulated that which is purely intrastate commerce under the insane theory that those who grow thing for use within their state affect interstate commerce because their customers could have purchased the product from an out-of-state source instead. The most laughable decision was when the Court used the Interstate Commerce Clause against two women who grew marijuana in California for their own personal use. Not only was there no interstate commerce, there was no commerce of any kind! However, the Court ruled that the woman could have purchased their marijuana out of state which somehow affected interstate commerce. The Supreme Court failed to note that such purchases would have been illegal.


The word “Supreme” in the United States Supreme Court obviously refers to power and not to intelligence, common sense or morality.

True. But the precedent was set in Wickard, which is why I singled it out.

 

[The Rabbi]

There were lots of disgraceful decisions but that one has limited relevance today. Something like Brown v Board of Ed or Roe is more relevant because it set really bad precedents. Wickard was, imo, the most harmful.

Wickard was a gross expansion of The Commerce Clause. This is do not argue.

Wait...what? Brown set a bad precedent? In what way?

It took what should be state issues from control of the states.

When states willfully trample the rights of it's citizens then the courts should rectify it when a case is argued before them. They don't always get it right but in the case of Brown they got it spot on.

They did not willfully trample the rights of citizens. that was the whole point. States have the right to determine educational policies. And marriage policies. With Brown all of that went away.

Those poor states couldn't treat their black students like shit anymore. My heart just weeps.

You're missing the point. The Court intruded in states' rights and set precedents for the federal gov't to take over virtually any state function and dictate how it should be done.
Nor did they treat their black students like shit. More commie propaganda.

 

[The Rabbi]

Korematsu v. United States

An utterly disgraceful decision.

There were lots of disgraceful decisions but that one has limited relevance today. Something like Brown v Board of Ed or Roe is more relevant because it set really bad precedents. Wickard was, imo, the most harmful.

Roe....millions of lives saved.....

More ridiculous ignorance from the right.

As with Citizens United, it was neither the role nor responsibility of the Roe Court to 'solve' the problem of abortion, only to rule on the constitutionality of measures seeking to deny women their right to privacy.

Indeed, Roe was the progeny of Griswold and Eisenstadt, both acknowledging the fundamental right to privacy, the right to decide whether to have a child or not without unwarranted interference by the state, prohibiting the state from compelling a woman to have a child against her will, and safeguarding individual liberty by restricting the size and authority of government.

The Roe Court did not 'authorize' abortion, it did not 'approve' abortion, it merely required those opposed to abortion to seek a means to end the practice that comported with the Constitution and its case law.

In fact, absent Roe, abortion would have continued, in states where the practice was either legal or illegal.

That is thoroughly disengenuous, as was your description of Kelo.
Roe effectively made abortion legal throughout the US, eviscerating the democratic process, by which these things should be decided.
There is no right to an abortion int he Constitution. The Court hallucinated such a thing. Similarly with Privacy, which actually stands on firmer grounds.
Similarly there is no right to marriage, gay or otherwise, in the Constitution. The Court imagined it after dropping LSD or something

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Rabbi is hallucinating and making assertions he can't prove.

We also know that he believes whites are superior to blacks, and thus whites are not held liable for what they do to blacks.

Brown and Roe are beyond his ability to analyze.

 

[2aguy]

If you could snap your fingers and change ONE US Supreme Court decision from any time in US history to your liking, which would you change and how and why?

Bush v. Gore...

Sorry, right triumphed over Gore trying to steal the election.

If gore had simply won his own state he would have been President....but then he had to go and try to steal it from bush....what kind of democrat is he that he couldn't steal those votes.....?

 

[Freewill]

If you could snap your fingers and change ONE US Supreme Court decision from any time in US history to your liking, which would you change and how and why?

Bush v. Gore...

Sorry, right triumphed over Gore trying to steal the election.

If gore had simply won his own state he would have been President....but then he had to go and try to steal it from bush....what kind of democrat is he that he couldn't steal those votes.....?

He just couldn't steal enough.