What US court decisions would you overturn?

[ZOmegaZ]

Similar to my previous thread on constitutional amendments (and probably some overlap in answers). Assuming you had complete authority to do so, what US court decisions would you overturn, and why?

[Borgholio]

Can we talk about court decisions that have not been made that should have been? If so, I would like to see the court strike down most (if not all) of the Patriot act and order it be re-written in a less invasive way.

[ZOmegaZ]

Fine by me.

[Zwinmar]

Patriot Act: would name it unconstitutional completely.

Certain things I would change like:
Sentient rights vice human rights.
Corporations are not people, ever.
People running for President picking their running mate. Rather it be the first loser the V.P. (granted, this only seems to be a good idea, have to do research before saying if it is)
White collar workers should actually be punished for their crimes, i.e. use the same measuring stick that they do for blue collar crime.

[Rogue 9]

People running for President picking their running mate. Rather it be the first loser the V.P. (granted, this only seems to be a good idea, have to do research before saying if it is)

Fun fact: This is actually how it used to be done, before the 12th Amendment changed the process to what is used now.

[Purple]

Which ever one said that previous court decisions should have any weight in current or future ones.

[ZOmegaZ]

Which ever one said that previous court decisions should have any weight in current or future ones.

Interesting! So precedent goes out the window. That seems like it might cause other difficulties...

[Purple]

Which ever one said that previous court decisions should have any weight in current or future ones.

Interesting! So precedent goes out the window. That seems like it might cause other difficulties...

Like for example force the courts to interpret laws anew from time to time instead of relying on old judgments based on bygone ages and bygone morality. Seriously, at least put a statute of limitation on them, like say 5 years.

[bilateralrope]

With precedent, when an issue comes up that the law is unclear on, the issue is decided once. Then some future cases that hit the same area of uncertainty won't happen, because the result is predictable.

Without precedent, you'll have more cases filed over the same area of uncertainty, because the people who would have lost under a precedent system have a chance of winning. Especially if they go shopping for a favorable judge.

[Purple]

With precedent, when an issue comes up that the law is unclear on, the issue is decided once. Then some future cases that hit the same area of uncertainty won't happen, because the result is predictable.

Without precedent, you'll have more cases filed over the same area of uncertainty, because the people who would have lost under a precedent system have a chance of winning. Especially if they go shopping for a favorable judge.

On the other hand. With precedent, when an issue comes up that the law is unclear on, the issue is decided once. And than, 20 years later when public morality changes and that old decision is now considered repugnant it is still held up as precedent.

I'd rather have more time spent on deciding each and every case on a case by case basis. Than again, I am from Europe. And we don't use those where I am from anyway. So I might be biased.

[bilateralrope]

On the other hand. With precedent, when an issue comes up that the law is unclear on, the issue is decided once. And than, 20 years later when public morality changes and that old decision is now considered repugnant it is still held up as precedent.

Unless the laws that the precedent relates to get changed.

[Zwinmar]

People running for President picking their running mate. Rather it be the first loser the V.P. (granted, this only seems to be a good idea, have to do research before saying if it is)

Fun fact: This is actually how it used to be done, before the 12th Amendment changed the process to what is used now.

I know, just not sure why it changed. Well other than parties wanting it to.

[fgalkin]

People running for President picking their running mate. Rather it be the first loser the V.P. (granted, this only seems to be a good idea, have to do research before saying if it is)

Fun fact: This is actually how it used to be done, before the 12th Amendment changed the process to what is used now.

I know, just not sure why it changed. Well other than parties wanting it to.

The VP sabotaging the President and vice versa?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Broomstick]

It is usually blamed on the election of 1800 where Jefferson and Burr deadlocked and it took multiple times going back to the Senate to break the vote - the winning one being cast by Alexander Hamilton for Jefferson, which surprised everyone given how much Hamilton loathed Jefferson. When asked he said that he did it because he thought Jefferson would be the better president - ah, for the days when politicians actually thought of the good of the nation!

Anyhow, it was done to correct a perceived flaw in the electoral college.

[Vaporous]

It is usually blamed on the election of 1800 where Jefferson and Burr deadlocked and it took multiple times going back to the Senate to break the vote - the winning one being cast by Alexander Hamilton for Jefferson, which surprised everyone given how much Hamilton loathed Jefferson. When asked he said that he did it because he thought Jefferson would be the better president - ah, for the days when politicians actually thought of the good of the nation!

Nitpick. Hamilton's vote wasn't the decisive one. New York went to Jefferson in every one of the 36 separate pollings of the Congress. . Hamilton politicking furiously to swing to vote (on the grounds that Jefferson was a hypocrite and a fanatic but Burr was worse) did contribute to the eventual deal that gave Jefferson the presidency.

[Terralthra]

With precedent, when an issue comes up that the law is unclear on, the issue is decided once. Then some future cases that hit the same area of uncertainty won't happen, because the result is predictable.

Without precedent, you'll have more cases filed over the same area of uncertainty, because the people who would have lost under a precedent system have a chance of winning. Especially if they go shopping for a favorable judge.

On the other hand. With precedent, when an issue comes up that the law is unclear on, the issue is decided once. And than, 20 years later when public morality changes and that old decision is now considered repugnant it is still held up as precedent.

I'd rather have more time spent on deciding each and every case on a case by case basis. Than again, I am from Europe. And we don't use those where I am from anyway. So I might be biased.

Old decisions held as repugnant are overturned regularly, and not just by Amendment. E.g., Lochner v. New York (1905) and Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923) were both overturned by West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937). It took only 17 years for Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) to be overturned by Lawrence v. Texas, 2003. There are plenty of other examples.

[Broomstick]

It is usually blamed on the election of 1800 where Jefferson and Burr deadlocked and it took multiple times going back to the Senate to break the vote - the winning one being cast by Alexander Hamilton for Jefferson, which surprised everyone given how much Hamilton loathed Jefferson. When asked he said that he did it because he thought Jefferson would be the better president - ah, for the days when politicians actually thought of the good of the nation!

Nitpick. Hamilton's vote wasn't the decisive one. New York went to Jefferson in every one of the 36 separate pollings of the Congress. . Hamilton politicking furiously to swing to vote (on the grounds that Jefferson was a hypocrite and a fanatic but Burr was worse) did contribute to the eventual deal that gave Jefferson the presidency.

Given that Burr killed Hamilton in a duel in 1804 and in 1807 was charged with treason (although not convicted) Hamilton was probably right about Burr being the worse choice.

Not that Jefferson was such a prize, either. The history books tend to focus on the positive, or put a positive spin on things that weren't so rosy from the other side of an issue.

[Darth Lucifer]

Bush v. Gore, for obvious reasons.

Salinas v. Texas is a little disturbing. So is Kelo v. City of New London.

[Darth Lucifer]

I forgot to mention Shelby County v. Holder...there was a thread on it earlier here:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=158832

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a fiery dissent...this was my favorite quote (emphasis mine):

...the Court strikes §4(b)’s coverage provision because, in its view, the provision is not based on “current conditions.” Ante, at 17. It discounts, however, that one such condition was the preclearance remedy in place in the covered jurisdictions, a remedy Congress designed both to catch discrimination before it causes harm, and to guard against return to old ways. 2006 Reauthorization §2(b)(3), (9). Volumes of evidence supported Congress’ de­termination that the prospect of retrogression was real. Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.

[SMJB]

Citizens United. Or, if we're allowed to use time travel, Dred Scott.

[Darth Lucifer]

Sorry to multi-post like this but the edit function is diabled here. Another court decision I disagreed with was Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, for the reasons laid out both here and in Justice Elena Kagan's dissent.