Worst Supreme Court Decision of the 21st Century?

[MarkD]

Is Bush v. Gore 20th or 21st century?

We'll say 21st century just to keep things simple.

Then Bush v. Gore is my pick. The Supreme Court had no business being involved in that case, and only got involved for pure partisan politics, and when they did get involved, set a "one time only" precedent that can't be used again.

Imagine if something like this happens again in 2020, and the ruling goes against President Trump...we'd have a recipe for chaos.

Judges who were appointed based on their opposition to "judicial activism" had no problem picking the President.

They ought to be called the Supreme Hypocrites of the United States for what they said and did in Bush v. Gore.

Here is what the Republican Justices said near the end of the opinion:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was almost certainly Anthony Kennedy who wrote it.

[MarkD]

Citizens United v. FEC because it was a bunch of grown men with degrees from the most prestigious universities in the country trying to make a serious legal argument that corporations are people and that they are exercising their first amendment rights by buying elections.

I would be disappointed in the Court if it's opinion actually said anything to the effect that corporations are people, but do not think that saying it is particularly crucial; it was not the most important legal issue to discuss. What was most important is what the Court said about whether the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, and I agree with the Court that it does. I see nothing wrong with recognizing that if a government in the United States passes a law that restricts the amount of money spent on political advertising, that government is abridging the freedom of political speech.

Imagine if a state were to pass a law that restricted the amount of money that churches can spend on constructing a chapel. Do you see how a law like that would violate the Free Exercise of Religion Clause in the First Amendment? Imagine if Congress were to pass a law the restricted the amount of money that could be spent by journalists on investigation efforts. Do you not see how that would violate the Freedom of the Press?

[MarkD]

If one's criteria is sheer naked partisanship, it has to be Heller. It overturned decades worth of precedent in a remarkably strained reading of case law. And Heller's companion, McDonald v City of Chicago flies in the face of local government primacy and needlessly overturned a reasonable 7th circuit decision penned by noted liberal activist judge Frank Easterbrook. CU could at least point to Buckley's principle, even if it did overturn McConnell only a decade later.

Korematsu is handily the worst SC decision since the turn of the 20th century.

No, Bush v. Gorefits the description of being a decision based on "sheer naked partisanship." Every Justice in the majority of that decision was a Republican, and the legal justification for why they felt they had to rule in Bush's favor was so lame that no one in the majority had the cajones to take credit for writing the majority opinion. "Sheer naked partisanship," I take for granted, is distinct from ideological motivation. There is no other Supreme Court decision ever that was so blatantly motivated by sheer partisan loyalty .... five Republican Justices helped a fellow Republican clinch the election; the two Democrats on the Court at the time were among the dissenters.