If you could undo a Supreme Court decision, which would it be and why?

2016-06-30T18:12:45-04:00

Marbury v. Madison, Scott v. Sandford, Pleassy v. Ferg., Roe v. Wade, Utah v Strieff, District of Columbia v. Heller? and the countless not mentioned ... Plenty to choose from with long reaching effects. Choose wisely.

06 Jul 2016 - Wow ... Went camping for a week and this topic blew up! Gonna take a week to get through all the posts.

Response by SPC Andrew Griffin made Jun 30 at 2016 6:15 PM

2016-06-30T18:15:36-04:00

Great Question! Some of those are a Hard one brother!

Response by MSG Pat Colby made Jun 30 at 2016 7:07 PM

2016-06-30T19:07:15-04:00

Wickard v Filburn

The decision gave the Feds an incredible amount of power over commerce and took away Americans ability to provide for themselves.

It also set the stage for obamacare. You know where the Feds force you to participate in commerce or pay a fine...

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 30 at 2016 8:47 PM

2016-06-30T20:47:43-04:00

Plenty of awful decisions would never have happened if not for Marbury V. Madison, when the Supreme Court voted themselves the authority to invalidate laws, instead of simply interpreting and applying laws, which was their constitutional role. The unconstitutional rulings in Roe V. Wade and Obergefell V. Hodges, among many others, couldn't have taken place at all if the government hadn't let the SCOTUS itself decide whether the SCOTUS should have more power or not.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Jun 30 at 2016 9:28 PM

2016-06-30T21:28:44-04:00

Looking through today's lens, the offering has much to dislike. However at time, these rulings had varying degrees of shock value. Roe v. Wade would be much more of a yawner today vs. the turmoil then. One theme in the other rulings was status quo mentality. It's up in the air so we'll keep most of it still up in the air. Also it varied by the political split of the Court. So my thinking is the rulings were pretty much in line with the political bent of the members. They come and go and will continue to do so.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 30 at 2016 10:59 PM

2016-06-30T22:59:35-04:00

Marbury V. Madison - That opened up what we have today of courts legislating from the bench. The constitution gave no provision for the court to decide what was and what law are and are not good to go.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Jul 1 at 2016 6:19 AM

2016-07-01T06:19:43-04:00

Roe vs. Wade.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 1 at 2016 1:07 PM

2016-07-01T13:07:20-04:00

Mike, you're asking me to look into the night sky and pick one star!!!

Response by SFC J Fullerton made Jul 1 at 2016 4:51 PM

2016-07-01T16:51:26-04:00

Michigan Department of State Police Vs. Sitz- 1990, in an appeal , SCOTUS overturned a lower court decision and decided 6-3 that "sobriety checkpoints" by law enforcement were not a violation of the 4th Amendment. Yet today, they are nothing but ticket mills and an average of 1% of violations are actually for drunk driving. How can it be illegal to pull over somebody without probable cause, but ok to stop you at a check point for one reason (sobriety) and charge you for something else that they would not of had probable cause for without making you stop at their checkpoint?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Department_of_State_Police_v._Sitz

Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the constitutionality of police sobriety checkpoints. By a vote of 6-3, the Court held that these checkpoints met the Fourth Amendment standard of "reasonable search and seizure."

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 2 at 2016 1:28 AM

2016-07-02T01:28:34-04:00

Bush v. Gore I truly think we would be in a much better place today if Dubya did not get placed as president

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 2 at 2016 1:51 PM

2016-07-02T13:51:11-04:00

MSG Private RallyPoint Member - Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), Pace v. Alabama (1883), The Civil Rights Cases (1883), Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918), Buck v. Bell (1927), Korematsu v. United States (1944), Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (2008), Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

Response by CPT Jeff Reichardt made Jul 5 at 2016 5:58 AM

2016-07-05T05:58:28-04:00

Pleassy

Response by Maj Mike Sciales made Jul 5 at 2016 8:23 AM

2016-07-05T08:23:49-04:00

Citizens United. It legalized bribery by corporations.

Response by SPC Steven Depuy made Jul 5 at 2016 8:43 AM

2016-07-05T08:43:00-04:00

I think the one upholding the Affordable Health Care Act as being legal, very few people benefited from it, most people pay huge amounts of money for less coverage, or get fined because they can't afford it.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 5 at 2016 8:52 AM

2016-07-05T08:52:49-04:00

I would undo the decision of homosexuals marriage as the Bible defines marriage as 1 man and 1 woman first. then would strip any rights given to the homosexuals/transgenders to include military service aa they are an abomination to the Lord our God. Then I would remove every executive order pened by Obama Then would prosicute both Obama and Hillary for. TREASON.

Response by SFC Thomas Twigg made Jul 5 at 2016 9:04 AM

2016-07-05T09:04:49-04:00

I don't think it's a question of undoing as much as it being a question of Congress taking action after the decoy of Marbury v Madison. The SCOTUS over step its authority and Congress did nothing because of politics.

Response by SPC Robert Elliott made Jul 5 at 2016 9:41 AM

2016-07-05T09:41:42-04:00

Can I pick a not heard decision to reverse? If so, the Conneticut Semi-Auto ban or numerous similar.

Response by SFC Mark Shemwell made Jul 5 at 2016 9:43 AM

2016-07-05T09:43:04-04:00

I think Marbury v. Madison. The institution of the idea that the Supreme Court interprets constitution rather than interpreting law against constitution has gone a long way in blatantly obvious unconstitutionally renderings, such as Kelo v. City of New London where public good has been reinterpreted to mean public use. A good look at public use is that though the ruling expanded imminent domain, the land still sits useless and owners have been thrown from their lands in the name of the public.

Response by CAPT Frank J. Nice made Jul 5 at 2016 9:53 AM

2016-07-05T09:53:15-04:00

Roe vs. Wade

Response by CAPT Hiram Patterson made Jul 5 at 2016 10:41 AM

2016-07-05T10:41:55-04:00

Yes, Obamacare and everything anti-gun!

Response by GySgt Randall Stufflebeam made Jul 5 at 2016 10:46 AM

2016-07-05T10:46:19-04:00

Butler v. U.S. - 1936

Redefined the Welfare clause in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Prior to this ruling, the welfare clause was understood to be defined by the other 17 clauses of Section 8, as expressed by the federalist papers. Meaning, the federal government could only spend the taxpayers' money on those specific items covered in Article I, Section 8. The courts redefined "welfare" was to what ever can be defined as "for the good of the country." So if the government says that giving a billion dollars to the Taliban to fight ISIS is for the good of the country, they are authorized to do so, because of this redefining of what welfare means. OR... If bailing out financial institutions is defined as being good for the country, the federal government can bail out their buddies with the taxpayers' money.

P.S. This was the consequential follow-up to the ratification of the 13th Amendment, which gave Congress unlimited funding capabilities, but until the 1936 Supreme Court decision, they were still constrained by the Constitution on what they could spend it on. Since the lose redefining of what welfare means, they have since had unlimited spending capability, thus they insane trillions of dollars of debt.

Response by Sgt David Hiersekorn made Jul 5 at 2016 10:49 AM

2016-07-05T10:49:20-04:00

Roe v. Wade is the modern version of Dredd Scott.

In Dred Scott, the Court faced a slave owner who claimed that the state was infringing his property rights. The slave claimed that his rights should be respected first. The Supreme Court decided that slaves were not part of "We, the People" and that he had no rights under the Constitution.

In Roe, the same thing happened. Except this time they said that the fetus was not a "person" under the 14th Amendment and, as a result, had no rights.

It was different circumstances, but the same core argument.

Response by CPL Daniel Schwinge made Jul 5 at 2016 12:14 PM

2016-07-05T12:14:52-04:00

There are many decisions I do not agree with. Roe vs. Wade is a biggie, especially since modern medicine can prove how far along a baby is in development. That was not known at the time. The one I would like to be reversed right away thou is the "Freedom of Speech" decision of being able to stomp on the Flag. This one cuts to my heart of the hatred of the country. If you hate the USA that much, get out.

Response by Cpl Robert Robertson made Jul 5 at 2016 1:30 PM

2016-07-05T13:30:05-04:00

Marbury v. Madison, As the British parliament told Judge Coke, the guy who so far as I know came up with this idea about 1600. The duty of Parliament is to make the law the duty of the judge is to see that the laws are fairly applied. Remove that and the Constitutional balance is restored NO more lawmaking from the bench

Response by CPO Bill Canada made Jul 5 at 2016 2:17 PM

2016-07-05T14:17:41-04:00

Roe V Wade it has cheapened life. It has made infanticide acceptable.

Response by SPC Kevin Sickles made Jul 5 at 2016 2:18 PM

2016-07-05T14:18:42-04:00

US vs Miller

Response by CPO Bill Canada made Jul 5 at 2016 2:19 PM

2016-07-05T14:19:16-04:00

Roe V Wade it has cheapened life and made infanticide a acceptale practice.

Response by CW3 Steven Prestridge made Jul 5 at 2016 2:42 PM

2016-07-05T14:42:11-04:00

There are so many, but off the top of my head, one of the worst was Claude R. Wickard, Secretary of Agriculture, et al. v. Roscoe C. Filburn. The decision that the farmer may be told he can't grow wheat for his own consumption, because providing for yourself effects interstate commerce was the end of freedom as it was long understood. Now there are no limitations to governmental intrusion of the serfs.

Response by SPC Nathan Freeman made Jul 5 at 2016 4:12 PM

2016-07-05T16:12:11-04:00

I think the most detrimental decision was the one that removed the Bible and prayer from schools. Roe v Wade would be second.

Response by LCpl Danny Beckwith made Jul 5 at 2016 7:45 PM

2016-07-05T19:45:57-04:00

I would have never created the federal reserve and handed the keys of the country over to the banks.

Response by LTC Jesse Edwards made Jul 5 at 2016 9:23 PM

2016-07-05T21:23:11-04:00

Heller is righteous and has my full support. There are so many to chose from. I guess I'd go at Roberts being the deciding vote to say the Obamacare mandate was constitutional.

Response by CW3 Steven Prestridge made Jul 6 at 2016 12:34 PM

2016-07-06T12:34:14-04:00

I love how CPT Anonymous makes the statement "I deployed to war so don't call me a coward" and immediately disables comment features of people who disagree with him. I have never seen a more classic liberal move.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2016 11:54 PM

2016-07-06T23:54:27-04:00

All of them. Welcome to 1776 shit-birds you have no place here and won't last a week and a half. It's impossible for you to imagine how happy this makes me.

Response by SSgt Jim Gilmore made Jul 7 at 2016 7:33 AM

2016-07-07T07:33:27-04:00

Roe v Wade. I believe that life begins at conception and must be protected. Abortion is the taking of an innocent life because someone made a bad choice in the heat of the moment. It should only be allowed in the case of a death risk to the mother. Actions have consequences. You make the wrong action and you pay the price. You have the responsibility to raise that young life properly and to be a productive member of society.

Response by GySgt Randall Stufflebeam made Jul 26 at 2016 12:00 AM

2016-07-26T00:00:41-04:00

"Gonna take a week to get through all the posts."

MSG Private RallyPoint Member - Have fun with that and drink lots of coffee to get through some of the more cumbersome discussions. ;-)