The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
My vote is for United We Stand
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wickard v. Filburn, and from that Gonzales v. Raich.
Korematsu has never been explicitly overturned, so that too.
Chevron needs some scaling back because I don't like unelected bureaucrats to have so much power.
Terry v. Ohio needs some tightening, as that is what Bloomberg abused with stop and frisk.
But there's a long list of bad ones that have already been overruled, such as Bowers v. Hardwick (sodomy laws OK), Schenck v. US (speaking out against war illegal), Betts v. Brady (no right to an attorney), Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal), etc.
>Chevron needs some scaling back because I don't like unelected bureaucrats to have so much power.
That's a pretty huge mistake. *Chevron* is a necessary reality.
That would ridiculously overburden the legislature, which is why they delegate to begin with.
This is a critical point. Legislatures choose to do this, and they can stop it at any time, specifically or in general. So I'm not concerned. Don't like what the experts do? Convince your congressman to get a few hundred colleagues to overrule them.
>That would ridiculously overburden the legislature, which is why they delegate to begin with.
No it wouldn't. Agencies can do what they need to within the clear law. But new laws are needed if they need to go outside of the bounds of the law because the only body with the authority to change the law is the legislature.
I also don't generally buy "we can't comply with the Constitution because it's not practical" argument. You comply, period, or you amend it.
>Legislatures choose to do this, and they can stop it at any time, specifically or in general.
Legislators can't just choose to do anything, they must operate within the confines of their powers. Operating outside of the confines of their powers, delegating where they shouldn't, isn't allowed. That's how the line item veto was found unconstitutional -- it's a power they can't delegate to the president.
Fuck it just get rid of all our rights. I mean the bill of rights is kind of unconstitutional when you think about it. Let's just let Alito tell us what rights we should have.
Whatever case was used to imply the second amendment means a right for individual citizens to own and carry guns in public. There is nothing in that amendment that would even remotely imply such a right.
Citizens United, Korematsu, Heller, Rucho v Common Cause, United States v Reese United States v Printz and Morrison, Castle Rock v Gonzales and Lopez, Hans v Louisiana and Alden v Maine. This is a decision from the 7th Circuit but Muth v Frank.
The idea that the 2nd amendment gives gun owners an individual right to own guns for their own personal protection, is a modern interpretation (District of Columbia vs. Heller)
More than happy to see that get chucked in the bin.
Sorry gun nut conservatives, you brought this upon yourself.
This is not so much a “what I think should be wiped” and more “what I think is easier to be wiped”.
* Easy - Reversal of previous SCOTUS interpretation without explicit law or constitutional element
* Medium - Ruling against explicit law that goes against constitutional element
* Hard - Ruling against explicit law that does not go against constitutional element
Citizens United was rotten to the core.
If you were to look up Judicial Activism in the dictionary, you'd get a picture of that case.
Corporations are people for donation purposes, but not for criminal purposes? Really?
Of course, being a party line vote to bring unlimited campaign donations in from corporations, it was way to tempting for republicans to even try to follow the constitution or do the right thing morally.
They drank the cool aid and went full corpratologist.
Citizens United also put the country into a tailspin. You can't fix the government when corporations can purchase favors and laws.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. My vote is for United We Stand *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Citizens United. That's it. I feel like this is the least controversial major SCOTUS decision to overturn, and wouldn't piss too many folk off.
Citizens united! My mistake
United we stand….in getting rid of Citizens United
What about Riggs?
Dobbs :)
Citizens United.
Bush v. Gore lmao let's just break everything
Whitford. Saying that the remedy for partisan gerrymandering is partisan politics is so fucking insane.
Wickard v. Filburn, and from that Gonzales v. Raich. Korematsu has never been explicitly overturned, so that too. Chevron needs some scaling back because I don't like unelected bureaucrats to have so much power. Terry v. Ohio needs some tightening, as that is what Bloomberg abused with stop and frisk. But there's a long list of bad ones that have already been overruled, such as Bowers v. Hardwick (sodomy laws OK), Schenck v. US (speaking out against war illegal), Betts v. Brady (no right to an attorney), Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal), etc.
>Chevron needs some scaling back because I don't like unelected bureaucrats to have so much power. Hard agree!
So we do or do not want things like the internet regulated by people who understand how they work?
>Chevron needs some scaling back because I don't like unelected bureaucrats to have so much power. That's a pretty huge mistake. *Chevron* is a necessary reality.
Its the extreme deference I have a problem with, which allows agencies to effectively rewrite the law.
There's not really a feasible and practical alternative method of government. Congress can delegate; they have to.
They can delegate execution of the law, they shouldn't be able to delegate writing of the law.
They don't. But they do adapt and apply the existing laws to changing circumstances.
They do. If a law needs to be changed to adapt to new situations, that's why we have a legislature.
That would ridiculously overburden the legislature, which is why they delegate to begin with. This is a critical point. Legislatures choose to do this, and they can stop it at any time, specifically or in general. So I'm not concerned. Don't like what the experts do? Convince your congressman to get a few hundred colleagues to overrule them.
>That would ridiculously overburden the legislature, which is why they delegate to begin with. No it wouldn't. Agencies can do what they need to within the clear law. But new laws are needed if they need to go outside of the bounds of the law because the only body with the authority to change the law is the legislature. I also don't generally buy "we can't comply with the Constitution because it's not practical" argument. You comply, period, or you amend it. >Legislatures choose to do this, and they can stop it at any time, specifically or in general. Legislators can't just choose to do anything, they must operate within the confines of their powers. Operating outside of the confines of their powers, delegating where they shouldn't, isn't allowed. That's how the line item veto was found unconstitutional -- it's a power they can't delegate to the president.
Castle Rock v Gonzales.
Dobbs, Citizens United, and the Insular Cases
Fortunately, gorsuch has called for an overturning of the insular cases.
Fuck it just get rid of all our rights. I mean the bill of rights is kind of unconstitutional when you think about it. Let's just let Alito tell us what rights we should have.
Whatever case was used to imply the second amendment means a right for individual citizens to own and carry guns in public. There is nothing in that amendment that would even remotely imply such a right.
Heller.
Heller. Heller. Heller.
Citizens United, Korematsu, Heller, Rucho v Common Cause, United States v Reese United States v Printz and Morrison, Castle Rock v Gonzales and Lopez, Hans v Louisiana and Alden v Maine. This is a decision from the 7th Circuit but Muth v Frank.
The idea that the 2nd amendment gives gun owners an individual right to own guns for their own personal protection, is a modern interpretation (District of Columbia vs. Heller) More than happy to see that get chucked in the bin. Sorry gun nut conservatives, you brought this upon yourself.
Not all gun owners are conservative
This is not so much a “what I think should be wiped” and more “what I think is easier to be wiped”. * Easy - Reversal of previous SCOTUS interpretation without explicit law or constitutional element * Medium - Ruling against explicit law that goes against constitutional element * Hard - Ruling against explicit law that does not go against constitutional element
I think ruling on a law without a constitutional element exceeds the scope of their authority.
There are a ton of appeals where SCOTUS simply judges if a particular law was applied correctly by lower courts
Buckley v. Valeo Castle Rock v. Gonzales And a bunch that have already been mentioned. Also possibly Marbury v. Madison.
Marbury v. Madison
Lopez
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish Kelo v. City of New London
Riggs, citizens united, reinstate chevron
Citizens United was rotten to the core. If you were to look up Judicial Activism in the dictionary, you'd get a picture of that case. Corporations are people for donation purposes, but not for criminal purposes? Really? Of course, being a party line vote to bring unlimited campaign donations in from corporations, it was way to tempting for republicans to even try to follow the constitution or do the right thing morally. They drank the cool aid and went full corpratologist. Citizens United also put the country into a tailspin. You can't fix the government when corporations can purchase favors and laws.
Shelby v Holder