Famous 5-4 Decisions by the One Percent Court

Supreme Court of the United States Seal

Supreme Court of the United States Seal (Photo credit: DonkeyHotey)

The Supreme Court has made several extremely consequential and controversial decisions along partisan lines in recent years to empower the one percent. Most people have heard of the Citizens United decision, but not many of the others. Use the link below to see a short summary of 8 important Supreme Court cases decided along partisan lines, then come back and take the poll. Vote on the 3 decisions you feel to be the most consequential. Leave a comment as to why you feel your 3 choices were the most consequential and any thoughts you may have about any of the cases.



5 responses to “Famous 5-4 Decisions by the One Percent Court

  1. So difficult to choose among so many unethical and insulting pronouncements by these lapdogs of the 1%! My choices are driven by category: Bush v. Gore clarifies who “the people” are that really get to democratically elect public officials; Citizens United v. FEC removes all illusions that the monied corporatists elites are regulated in any way; and Duke v. Walmart illustrate that the poor and working class will not be allowed to organize in any way to redress grievances.

  2. I chose my first two for reasons similar to Ken’s: the Bush v. Gore decision made the rest of them possible since Bush set up the 5-4 Court, and Citizens United v. FEC was clear evidence that the Court is working for the 1%. For my third case I chose Janus Capital Group v. First Derivative Traders, because I consider it to be a particularly tortuous and illogical argument. It’s like saying that I’m not responsible for shooting someone because it was my hand that did it — a subsidiary — not all of me!

  3. I also chose the first two court decisions. Bush v. Gore was the most consequential because it set the stage for all the rulings that followed. The Supreme Court overreached its authority when it decided against a Florida recount and thus decided the outcome of the presidential election on its own. I’m not sure if many people are aware, but there was a voter purge in 2000 similar to what Governor Scott is trying to do in 2012. The number of voters purged in 2000 was more than enough to have changed the outcome of the 2000 presidential race (Bush was declared the winner by only 537 votes).

    My third choice was National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (the Obamacare ruling) because the ruling questioned the federal government’s broad use of the Commerce Clause to implement laws. There are many federal laws that have been implemented based on the authority of the Commerce Clause. The questioning of this authority could be particularly damaging to laws involving regulation of the economy and social welfare. The Commerce Clause was used to give the federal government the power to implement the federal minimum wage law and Social Security.


  4. Pingback: The Citizens United Ruling Part I | citizens for truth

  5. Pingback: Citizens United Ruling Part 1 – CORRECTED | citizens for truth

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s