If you could change 4 Supreme Court cases what would you change

[Classic Conservative]

Personally, I would change Roe v. Wade, NFIB v. Sebelius, Zivotofsky v. Kerry and Engel v. Vitale.

[Skill and Chance]

Dred Scott v. Sandford
Plessy v. Ferguson
Korematsu v. U.S
Citizens United v. FEC

I think he means decisions that are current law?  Your first three have been overturned.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Bush v Gore, Washington DC handgun law overturned, Dred Scott, and Citizens United.

[Crumpets]

Of ones that haven't been Constitutionally fixed or overturned:

DC v. Heller
Bush v. Gore
Citizens United v. FEC
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Roe v. Wade

Then, the other 3 don't even matter, because 57 million lives have been saved!

[xavier110]

(1) I would definitely overturn a major piece of Federal Indian law. Johnson v. M'Intosh is a legitimately evil decision, enshrining colonial racial hierarchies into our law and providing the foundation for the dispossession of indigenous peoples' lands. At the very least, I would repudiate all of Marshall's ridiculous depictions of indigenous peoples and attempt to restore the tribes'  sovereignty as nations.

(2) This term's Elonis is frankly a ridiculous decision. There are so many First Amendment-related cases that I would like to roll back.

(3) Bye bye Citizens United.

(4) Kelo was dumb, so that too.

[Mr. Smith]

Citizens United
Kelo v New London (and shame on the so-called "liberal" justices and brownie points to the broken clock conservatives for standing up to the plutocratic right)
Dred Scott
Gore v Bush

[Antonio the Sixth]

Counting only those whose precedent is still held as valid to this day (so no Dred Scott).

1. Buckley v. Valeo (the FECA should have been upheld in full, and campaign donations not held to represent speech)
2. Bush v. Gore (recounts were not only permissible, but mandatory and no election, federal or national, can be certified without a full and unmistakable count of all votes)
3. Wisconsin v. Yoder (States may require the schooling of any children under 18)
4. NFIB v. Sebelius (the Medicaid expansion is upheld unconditionally)

[TNF]

NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp.

[pbrower2a]

Citizens United
Kelo
Korematsu

Others, especially Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson, have been fully undone.

[SWE]

Dred Scott v. Sandford
Plessy v. Ferguson
Korematsu v. U.S
Citizens United v. FEC

I think he means decisions that are current law?  Your first three have been overturned.

Korematsu was never overturned

[Mr. Reactionary]

Tough to limit it to 4.

Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798) - Ruled Constitutional prohibition on Ex Post Facto laws doesn't apply to civil Ex Post Facto laws.

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) - Ruled that a non-commercial, intrastate activity is somehow commerce among the States.
 
Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) - Ruled that American citizens can be thrown into concentration camps without due process.

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) - Ruled that even though the Constitution does not address State legislative districts and even though the Senate is not apportioned by population, for some reason State legislative districts must only be based on population.

If I could go 5, I'd definitely overturn:
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) - Ruled that the government can use eminent domain to steal land from one private party and then give it to another private party.

[Frodo]

-Planned Parenthood vs. Casey (I would have preferred Roe vs. Wade to be overturned in its entirety as opposed to being merely eroded over time to the point the original decision is now pretty much a dead letter throughout much of the Union -the better to inspire an instant backlash and revive the feminist movement)

-Dred Scott vs. Sanford

-Plessy vs. Ferguson

-Johnson vs. M'Intosh

[politicallefty]

Korematsu was never overturned

That may be true, but it doesn't really apply today. (And I say that as someone who believes that Korematsu was the absolute worst decision ever handed down by the Supreme Court.)

As for my answers (in terms of cases that still apply):
-Buckley v. Valeo
-Kelo v. City of New London
-Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad
-FCC v. Pacifica Foundation

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Schenk v. US  (1919) - decision upholding the prosecution of anti-draft protestors that lives on in such phrases as "clear and present danger" and "shouting fire in a crowded theater."

Wickard v. Filburn (1942) - "interstate commerce" as an unrestricted license to limit and direct the economic activity of individuals.

Roe v Wade & Doe v Bolton (1973) - both released on the same day, the second extending the application of the first, so I'm treating them as one.

Employment Division v. Smith  (1990) - decision broke the presumption held for several decades prior that the 1st Amendment protected free exercise of religion against laws of general applicability.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Schenk v. US  (1919) - decision upholding the prosecution of anti-draft protestors that lives on in such phrases as "clear and present danger" and "shouting fire in a crowded theater."

Wickard v. Filburn (1942) - "interstate commerce" as an unrestricted license to limit and direct the economic activity of individuals.

Roe v Wade & Doe v Bolton (1973) - both released on the same day, the second extending the application of the first, so I'm treating them as one.

Employment Division v. Smith  (1990) - decision broke the presumption held for several decades prior that the 1st Amendment protected free exercise of religion against laws of general applicability.

Roe is on our side(pro-life side) now too.

[Pandaguineapig]

Even though it decided an election i don't see why many would want to use Bush v. Gore as one of the 4 seeing as it isn't being used as precedent and nobody knows if Gore would have won the recount

[Slander and/or Libel]

Even though it decided an election i don't see why many would want to use Bush v. Gore as one of the 4 seeing as it isn't being used as precedent and nobody knows if Gore would have won the recount

If the recount had been allowed to continue, it wouldn't have cast a pall over the whole process. I think there's a credible argument to be made that Bush v. Gore, while not being used as precedent, helped to contribute materially to cynicism over our election processes.

[Pandaguineapig]

Even though it decided an election i don't see why many would want to use Bush v. Gore as one of the 4 seeing as it isn't being used as precedent and nobody knows if Gore would have won the recount

If the recount had been allowed to continue, it wouldn't have cast a pall over the whole process. I think there's a credible argument to be made that Bush v. Gore, while not being used as precedent, helped to contribute materially to cynicism over our election processes.

But the same could have been said had the decision been flipped and gore won after endless recounts

[Vega]

Korematsu v. United States
Buckley v. Valeo (the part of it saying money in politics is free speech)
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission
Citizens United v. FEC

[Slander and/or Libel]

Even though it decided an election i don't see why many would want to use Bush v. Gore as one of the 4 seeing as it isn't being used as precedent and nobody knows if Gore would have won the recount

If the recount had been allowed to continue, it wouldn't have cast a pall over the whole process. I think there's a credible argument to be made that Bush v. Gore, while not being used as precedent, helped to contribute materially to cynicism over our election processes.

But the same could have been said had the decision been flipped and gore won after endless recounts

In the sense that at least one recount would have increased the fidelity of the results, no you couldn't.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Even though it decided an election i don't see why many would want to use Bush v. Gore as one of the 4 seeing as it isn't being used as precedent and nobody knows if Gore would have won the recount

If the recount had been allowed to continue, it wouldn't have cast a pall over the whole process. I think there's a credible argument to be made that Bush v. Gore, while not being used as precedent, helped to contribute materially to cynicism over our election processes.

But the same could have been said had the decision been flipped and gore won after endless recounts

In the sense that at least one recount would have increased the fidelity of the results, no you couldn't.

Maybe if Gore had asked for a statewide recount instead of selective recounts in counties where he thought it would help him, it would increased the perceived fidelity of the results. Both sides contributed to electoral cynicism in 2000.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Even though it decided an election i don't see why many would want to use Bush v. Gore as one of the 4 seeing as it isn't being used as precedent and nobody knows if Gore would have won the recount

If the recount had been allowed to continue, it wouldn't have cast a pall over the whole process. I think there's a credible argument to be made that Bush v. Gore, while not being used as precedent, helped to contribute materially to cynicism over our election processes.

But the same could have been said had the decision been flipped and gore won after endless recounts

In the sense that at least one recount would have increased the fidelity of the results, no you couldn't.

Maybe if Gore had asked for a statewide recount instead of selective recounts in counties where he thought it would help him, it would increased the perceived fidelity of the results. Both sides contributed to electoral cynicism in 2000.

Could the court have ordered a statewide recount?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Even though it decided an election i don't see why many would want to use Bush v. Gore as one of the 4 seeing as it isn't being used as precedent and nobody knows if Gore would have won the recount

If the recount had been allowed to continue, it wouldn't have cast a pall over the whole process. I think there's a credible argument to be made that Bush v. Gore, while not being used as precedent, helped to contribute materially to cynicism over our election processes.

But the same could have been said had the decision been flipped and gore won after endless recounts

In the sense that at least one recount would have increased the fidelity of the results, no you couldn't.

Maybe if Gore had asked for a statewide recount instead of selective recounts in counties where he thought it would help him, it would increased the perceived fidelity of the results. Both sides contributed to electoral cynicism in 2000.

The SCOTUS was free to order a statewide recount, if it saw fit. The SC's rulings have never been constrained by what the parts were pleading for.

[Crumpets]

Can someone explain to me the massive dislike of Kelo v New London? I get that if you have a massive distrust in corporate entities, it seems like a horrible path to go down. But wouldn't that distrust lead to opposing basically any private contracting from the federal government? Apologies for my ignorance on the case.