Worst Supreme Court Decision of the 21st Century?

[TPIG]

For me, that would be NFIB v. Sebelius (the 2012 Obamacare decision) which not only allowed the disastrous law to stand, but basically set a precedent that the federal government can mandate any kind of behavior as long as the penalty for disobeying is called a "tax". What decision of this century do YOU think is worst?

[brucejoel99]

Shelby County v. Holder (2013). It's not just that a bare majority of the court gutted one of the most important civil rights laws in American history; it's that the principle they relied on was one relied on by apologists for the Confederacy after the Civil War: that states possess a special dignity that's offended if we recognize that some engage in more race discrimination than others.

[Anna Komnene]

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.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Shelby County v. Holder (2013). It's not just that a bare majority of the court gutted one of the most important civil rights laws in American history; it's that the principle they relied on was one relied on by apologists for the Confederacy after the Civil War: that states possess a special dignity that's offended if we recognize that some engage in more race discrimination than others.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Kelo.




edit: I'm changing my answer to Gonzales v. Raich. Abysmal decision. Maybe Scalia's worst opinion.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Citizens United. I agree with Republicans John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O Conner when they say it was one of the worst decisions ever. Ironically, in Williams Yulee v Florida Bar, Justice Thomas rules that campaign finance limits for elected judges are constitutional. So no limits for the executive and legislative branch but limits for the judiciary are a-okay. What a crock of sh**t

TBF, electing judges is kind of evil.

[darklordoftech]

Morse v. Frederick. Any criticism of government policy could be said to be "promoting illegal activity."

[NewYorkExpress]

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

[Mr. Reactionary]

Morse v. Frederick. Any criticism of government policy could be said to be "promoting illegal activity."

Bong hitz 4 jesus

[TPIG]

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

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

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Citizens United

[NewYorkExpress]

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.

[Mr. Smith]

Kelo v. New London

[Dr. Arch]

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.

This, without a doubt.

[GoTfan]

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.

[Illiniwek]

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.

[darklordoftech]

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.

[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?

[Young Conservative]

NFIB Vs. Sebellius

[Sir Mohamed]

Citizens United, followed closely by Shelby County. Both HORRIBLE.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Citizens United v. FEC

The only case I've formally learned so far, it's terrible.

[Dr. MB]

Citizens United v. FEC. By far. Possibly the worst decision besides Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Citizens United v. FEC. By far. Possibly the worst decision besides Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson.

So you think unlimited corporate political donations is even worse than forced sterilization?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Citizens United v. FEC. By far. Possibly the worst decision besides Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson.

So you think unlimited corporate political donations is even worse than forced sterilization?

Free speech is the worst!