If you had control of the USSC, what case would you overturn?

There has always been a over reliance on the USSC to settle issues that the representative branch has been unable, or unwilling to do. That’s why we are witnessing, circuses like the Kavanugh hearing, or Mich McConnell’s sneaky maneuvering concerning putting judges on the bench. In my opinion this kind article of distorts the concept of co-equal branches of government concept.
That being said, if you had a choice to overturn any of the rulings considered controversial, which one would it be, and why?

I would personally go with Citizens United. Even though I consider the whole “corporations aren’t people” argument beyond dumb, as well as completely tone draft to the function of the constitution, I still don’t consider money to be speech. The consequences since the ruling have been instant, and obvious.

 

Edit: Tone deaf

 

You would have to ask the Intelligence Community (aka "the fourth branch of government"), as they currently have controlling influence over the USSC (and the other three branches of government).

 

By overturned do you mean on constitutional grounds? Such as thinking that this or that case was not decided based on the law or constitution? Or do you mean just a personal preference, that you don't like that case?

 

I agree that corporations are not people. But money is most certainly an expression of speech. Much like burning the bible or the flag is, both of which is protected under our 1st Amendment.

That said, the case that I would overturn would be Wickard v Filburn 1942. In that case the court decided that it was with in the governments power, under the commerce clause, to regulate production. In that particular case the government passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 which allowed the government, through subsidies to demand that farmers not grow plants in certain tracks of their own land. It prevented a farmer from having livestock, feed for that livestock, grain, and seeds for future growth, all for personal use, not to sell "because it affected interstate commerce". The Agricultural Adjustment Act was instituted because there was so much food being grown that it lowered prices. It sought to artificially raise those prices by purposefully restricting production.

With that ruling it greatly expanded the power of the Commerce Clause, far beyond its original scope. It has been expanding since.

Edit: LINK: Wickard v. Filburn (1942) – U.S. Conlawpedia (gsu.edu)

 

Nicely done.I didn’t even think to include that case.

 

Well since it’s a hypothetical, I’ll give a wide leeway for your interpretation of the constitution.

 

Most don't even know it exists. The only reason I know of it is due to a lawyer.

 

This is one of FDR’s very few success with the Supreme Court. It always perplexed me why the court almost did a 180 after Hammer V. Daggenhart which weren’t exactly the same, but also limited the federal government’s role in commerce.

 

The Supreme court has always been very political. 1918 vs. 1942. The judges were replaced and along with them their opinions.

 

While that maybe true, Hammer v. Daggenhart(1941) was literally the first Supreme Court ruling overturned in 152 years since the high court had been established up to that point.

 

Thanks for sharing this. I never heard of this case or its impact on the grocery dollar. It makes me rethink some of the arguments put forth against illegal immigration.

 

I would fully overturn Buck vs. Bell which is the still used to support all sorts of idiocy like the lockdowns.

 

The one which is really interesting as far as quick reversal of a decision is

Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) (8 - 1) decision.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) (6-3) decision.

Complete and utter reverval of an 8-1 decision in in 3 years. Not partial reversal - complete reversal.

 

Well since you brought up Citizens United, do you think it was decided unconstitutionally?

 

I’m really split on that issue, because at the heart of the case was speech, since it was film was about Hillary Clinton and was classified as electioneering communications , where the government tried placing a injunction on it, since it was within the 30 day window of the Democratic primaries. I think a narrow ruling would have been more appropriate in this case.

 

How would you have had a narrow ruling? The issue was whether it was legal for the FEC to ban the showing of the Hillary Clinton movie on Directv. That seems rather a straight up First Amendment issue.

 

So is there a case you would actually overturn, or are you going to continue to derail the thread?

 

How is this a thread derail? I'm talking about a case that you brought up in the OP.

 

The op was about what case you would overturn if you had a chance, If I remember right.

 

Reality check: You remembered correctly.

 

I'd be interested in knowing those but this probably isn't the thread for it.

 

This is a poll of opinions not legal interpretations, so it's really both.

 

Speech is speech. Writing is speech. Money is a tool. Being able to buy a louder p.a. system does not mean it is legal to play it at full volume anywhere, anytime. It is not in the interests of a democratic republic to allow money to dominate it.

 

Then you agree with a false notion in realty and under the law. Try United States Code Article 1 Section 1.

Corporations are merely an assembly of people engaged in mutual economic endeavor. Corporations were one of the more brilliant creations of western civilization and enable HUGE projects and accomplishments while creating higher and higher standards of living. They have allowed more people to create and gain wealth than had we only had private single owner businesses through out our history. They serve a vital purpose in our economy.