What Supreme Court decision would you change; why and what would come of it

[Bill Peckham]

Most Supreme Court decisions have dissent so someone who is an expert thinks they should have been decided differently but the one I think I would change is Wickard v Filburn. and it was unanimous. And it's ironic I'd change it because I think it is because of this decision (and others in the same vein) that the mandate in the Affordable Care Act is Constitutional and I support the ACA, but I just think we should live in a country that encourages its Roscoe Filburn's to grow their own feed.

I think this case marks a final capitulation to economic efficiency, this time at the cost of personal freedom. In general I think we could have done with less economic efficiency over the last 70 years. It is probably the case that the state could have found a different way to compel Roscoe to buy his feed but it would be a better world, and it would be my hope, if instead TPTB at the time said that he's doing what he is suppose to be doing and base their public policy on the assumption that farmers could grow their own feed.

Of course today that would mean that Congress would have had to have found another way to get everyone to participate in the health insurance market but if the ACA, if in all things, our society accommodated self sufficiency then I think that would be a valuable change. We might today have a robust Method II  for Medicare and have a viable way to opt out of the dialysis industrial complex, no matter what our zip code. In general I think the viable ability to opt out would be a welcome competitive check and balance on a number of activities.

What Supreme Court decision would you change? What would be different if the decision had gone the other way?


edited to correct homophone fail

[jbeany]

Gregg v Georgia, which overturned Furman v Georgia, making the death penalty constitutional again.  We can't apply it fairly, and we can't guarantee that the process isn't sending innocent people to their deaths.  Life without parole can be undone.  Death can't be.

[cariad]

Hate to be boring, but I'd go with Citizens United. Worst. Decision. Ever.

A close second would be Ledbetter in which the court held that a woman waited too long to sue over pay disparity, even though the abuse happened over a lengthy career at the company. Shame on you, Goodyear.

Psst, Bill: It's "dissents". Sorry, not trying to be pedantic, but I know the spellcheck will never catch that one.

Oh, and things could get really ugly around here if someone mentions the R-word.

I would be very interested to hear about contentious high court decisions in foreign countries if any non-Americans feel like contributing.

[Willis]

If we want to keep the discussion within the past 100 years or so (apologies to Dred Scott for the worst...decision...EVER). This decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London) is inexplicable (see 5th Amendment). Hmmm...thinking about it, maybe Dred Scott and Kelo have a lot in common? The court's view of property rights took a 180deg turn somewhere along the way.

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan which promised 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues. The Court held in a 5–4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The City eventually agreed to move Susette Kelo's house to a new location and to pay substantial additional compensation to other homeowners. The redeveloper was unable to obtain financing and had to abandon the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an empty lot.

 

[cariad]

If we want to keep the discussion within the past 100 years or so (apologies to Dred Scott for the worst...decision...EVER). This decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London) is inexplicable (see 5th Amendment). Hmmm...thinking about it, maybe Dred Scott and Kelo have a lot in common? The court's view of property rights took a 180deg turn somewhere along the way.

Uh, your snotty reference to my post aside, the question asks what decision you would change and how the country would be different (present tense, not past). Dred Scott was overturned some 150 years ago, so it would seem it has little bearing on this question.

[Hemodoc]

Gregg v Georgia, which overturned Furman v Georgia, making the death penalty constitutional again.  We can't apply it fairly, and we can't guarantee that the process isn't sending innocent people to their deaths.  Life without parole can be undone.  Death can't be.

Dear jbeany,

I agree that the death penalty is subject to subjective justice and that there have been over a hundred documented cases where the death sentence has been overturned with new DNA evidence clearing those unjustly convicted.

On the other hand, there are certainly many that do not deserve to live by the horrible acts that they have committed. In theory I support the application of the death penalty to those that have heinously murdered others deliberately and sadistically, however, as you correctly mention, many innocent have been declared guilty with shoddy evidence. However, someone like Ted Bundy got what he deserved.

[HouseOfDialysis]

I would overturn Roth Vs United States. There is no such thing as obscenity. The First Amendment is the First Amendment. As long as you aren't shouting Fire in a Crowded Theater when there is no Fire..

[Bill Peckham]

Gregg v Georgia, which overturned Furman v Georgia, making the death penalty constitutional again.  We can't apply it fairly, and we can't guarantee that the process isn't sending innocent people to their deaths.  Life without parole can be undone.  Death can't be.

Dear jbeany,

I agree that the death penalty is subject to subjective justice and that there have been over a hundred documented cases where the death sentence has been overturned with new DNA evidence clearing those unjustly convicted.

On the other hand, there are certainly many that do not deserve to live by the horrible acts that they have committed. In theory I support the application of the death penalty to those that have heinously murdered others deliberately and sadistically, however, as you correctly mention, many innocent have been declared guilty with shoddy evidence. However, someone like Ted Bundy got what he deserved.

I don't know how it can be held in reserve for those few - maybe one a year? how many? - that to have them alive seems like an an affront to a civilized world. I'm sure we would all draw the line differently but it isn't justice the way it's used in modern day America. I don't think anyone who has read Balko's blog could support the death penalty.

Hate to be boring, but I'd go with Citizens United. Worst. Decision. Ever.

A close second would be Ledbetter in which the court held that a woman waited too long to sue over pay disparity, even though the abuse happened over a lengthy career at the company. Shame on you, Goodyear.

Psst, Bill: It's "dissents". Sorry, not trying to be pedantic, but I know the spellcheck will never catch that one.

Oh, and things could get really ugly around here if someone mentions the R-word.

I would be very interested to hear about contentious high court decisions in foreign countries if any non-Americans feel like contributing.

Love feedback about errors like dissent/descent.

Citizen's United is one I'd change but it hasn't manifested to its full potential yet so more of a predictive statement, I think. Though it may well be that in ten years that is the one I would change. If Citizens United went the other way I'd get a lot fewer robo calls every election.

[Bill Peckham]

oh and Bush v Gore has to take the cake as most inappropriate action - becoming involved was a mistake.

[cariad]

oh and Bush v Gore has to take the cake as most inappropriate action - becoming involved was a mistake.

Absolutely that was a horror show.

Death penalty is a good one - I don't read the blog you linked, Bill, but any law that has the possibility of putting innocent people to death seems a horrible idea to me.

What about the very recent Walmart decision that said that women discriminated against could not form a class because they were too diverse??!! The decision said there was no "glue" holding the claims together. It's been a miserable few years for the workers of the country, especially women. Now they are saying that this could be used to stop people forming a class to go after corrupt mortgage and investment banks. I guess we'll see an end to those random $8 checks that turn up every year or so, all because we once bought some product that we forgot we owned.

I will have to take some time to read more about Wickard V Filburn as it is fascinating how a decision about crops comes to affect our health care laws. Yes, I think Citizens United, at worst, will make our electoral process a joke. However, I do see slim rays of hope. Target was shaken when people started to take notice of their campaign contributions to anti-gay politicians. Early days yet. I do see no excuse for the logical contortions one has to go through to follow the whole decision, though.

[jbeany]

Dear jbeany,

I agree that the death penalty is subject to subjective justice and that there have been over a hundred documented cases where the death sentence has been overturned with new DNA evidence clearing those unjustly convicted.

On the other hand, there are certainly many that do not deserve to live by the horrible acts that they have committed. In theory I support the application of the death penalty to those that have heinously murdered others deliberately and sadistically, however, as you correctly mention, many innocent have been declared guilty with shoddy evidence. However, someone like Ted Bundy got what he deserved.

Oh, I don't disagree that the death penalty is well deserved in many cases.  If there was a way to ensure it was being applied fairly, it would be different.  But I don't think rightfully killing Bundy or McVeigh, who so clearly deserved the ultimate punishment, can ever be balanced against the vast number of people wrongly convicted.  I haven't checked stats recently, but last I looked, groups like the Innocence Project have had a hand in exonerating over 185 people from death row.  The scale is leaning to heavily on the side of injustice right now.

[Hemodoc]

Dear jbeany,

I agree that the death penalty is subject to subjective justice and that there have been over a hundred documented cases where the death sentence has been overturned with new DNA evidence clearing those unjustly convicted.

On the other hand, there are certainly many that do not deserve to live by the horrible acts that they have committed. In theory I support the application of the death penalty to those that have heinously murdered others deliberately and sadistically, however, as you correctly mention, many innocent have been declared guilty with shoddy evidence. However, someone like Ted Bundy got what he deserved.

Oh, I don't disagree that the death penalty is well deserved in many cases.  If there was a way to ensure it was being applied fairly, it would be different.  But I don't think rightfully killing Bundy or McVeigh, who so clearly deserved the ultimate punishment, can ever be balanced against the vast number of people wrongly convicted.  I haven't checked stats recently, but last I looked, groups like the Innocence Project have had a hand in exonerating over 185 people from death row.  The scale is leaning to heavily on the side of injustice right now.

I agree with that once again even though I support the concept of a death penalty  in those cases where there is no doubt whatsoever with factual, hard evidence, not the circumstantial cases that make up most of death row.  Unfortunately, jury's today use subject elements to decide cases even when advised not to do so. But in a case where let's say we have surveillance cameras, eye witness testimony, motive and throw in a reliable confession of premeditation.  Sure, apply the death penalty to put away evil from the land which was God's original reason for allowing the death penalty in the OT. But this was only when you had two or three witnesses of the actual event and who did it. The Bible makes it clear that you never put someone to death if only one witness testifies to ensure that the innocent are not executed.

That then goes back to the way we prosecute folks today, often to make a name for the prosecutor.  Too many examples of over zealous prosecution and withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense just to gain the conviction.  The DNA evidence clearing nearly 200 inmates is testimony that we should revisit the rules of evidence allowed in courts. Reliance  on purely circumstantial evidence should be reevaluated in light of all of these reversals.

[MooseMom]

In my very humble opinion, the death penalty is not the ultimate punishment.  Life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, EVER, is, in my mind, the ultimate punishment.   That is just one reason I cannot support capital punishment. 

 

[Willis]

If we want to keep the discussion within the past 100 years or so (apologies to Dred Scott for the worst...decision...EVER). This decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London) is inexplicable (see 5th Amendment). Hmmm...thinking about it, maybe Dred Scott and Kelo have a lot in common? The court's view of property rights took a 180deg turn somewhere along the way.

Uh, your snotty reference to my post aside, the question asks what decision you would change and how the country would be different (present tense, not past). Dred Scott was overturned some 150 years ago, so it would seem it has little bearing on this question.

Snotty reference? Oh, I went back and re-read your post and it seems I used a phrase (about the worst decision ever) that was like yours. That wasn't intentionally directed at you. Mere coincidence...it is a common cliche after all as this proves. I didn't even note that until now when you said something. Sorry.   

As for Dred Scott...It seems to me perhaps the most important--and wrongly decided--case in American history. That case, inflamed by the likes of John Brown's raid and execution and the book "Uncle Tom's Cabin" were significant factors leading to the Civil War. Yes it was overturned, but only after more than 600,000 men died and millions more maimed for life. That chain of events led to the strong Federal Government we endure today as well as the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Without that war we may very well have seen the onset of Balkanization and a very different map of North America.

But back to my original point about the Kelo Decision. Unless the current move within state legislatures to block such government takings is accelerated and affirmed by the Supreme Court (basically overturning Kelo), property owners in the U.S. no longer actually own their property. If government officials using the legal power of the government (i.e., force) can take away you property for any reason THEY think is best for the "common good" then no one owns property.

 

[jbeany]

If government officials using the legal power of the government (i.e., force) can take away you property for any reason THEY think is best for the "common good" then no one owns property.

 

Somewhere, a lot of Native American ghosts are laughing hysterically at us...

[Willis]

If government officials using the legal power of the government (i.e., force) can take away you property for any reason THEY think is best for the "common good" then no one owns property.

 

Somewhere, a lot of Native American ghosts are laughing hysterically at us...

Is that an example of Karma?

 

 

[jbeany]

Yup!

[cariad]

Snotty reference? Oh, I went back and re-read your post and it seems I used a phrase (about the worst decision ever) that was like yours. That wasn't intentionally directed at you. Mere coincidence...it is a common cliche after all as this proves. I didn't even note that until now when you said something. Sorry.   

Oh! Well, don't I feel silly! Thanks for clearing that up, Willis. Apologies for my defensiveness. 

I agree, MM, that life in prison is a fate worse than death, especially in this country. If there were a way to apply the death penalty only to people who obviously did it, and only to those people whose victims would somehow feel better for it, then maybe.... I have heard many people, including a warden who spoke to NPR, say that most prisoners will tell you that their greatest fear is to spend a lifetime in that environment. Also, this particular warden (who used to be pro death penalty) felt that capital punishment damages everyone but the prisoner. He had to oversee these deaths and he came to dread it.

I really want to look over the other cases mentioned but am out of time for now. Love SCOTUS talk - so much to learn. Till next time, ta!