The US Supreme Court: is it working?
By evanslf
@evanslf (484)
August 15, 2008 8:12am CST
I wonder what people think of the US Supreme Court and whether it is really working any more. It seems to me that over the last few years, the Court's decisions have become increasingly an extension of the political battles played out between Republicans and Democrats. I feel there is something worrying about a court when you can predict with near accuracy how 4 members will vote one way and 4 others will vote another, leaving the lone Judge Stephens in the middle breaking the tie.
I recall former Chief Justice Rendquist saying that he had come to realise that it was not the arguments that mattered but that he 'had the votes'. I find this truly shocking, has the US Supreme Court now just become another political theatre where votes are cast to determine a political outcome?
My understanding of a judge is that he should look at each case as it comes to him on its merits, look at the law of the land that applies - irrespective of whether he or she feels that that law is wrong - and then make his/her decision based on the facts of the case and his/her interpretation of the law. I think all 9 judges should be doing this but I don't feel they are.
What do you think? Should the Supreme Court be changed, perhaps should there be a new system that allows the appointment of apolitical judges to remove the political complexion that so infuses the Court these days? What are your thoughts?
2 people like this
4 responses
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
15 Aug 08
I guess the "justice is blind" that holds true in the lower courts does not apply to the Supreme Court. I believe it should be made up of a nonpartisan group of judges that will inturpet the Constitution. There should really be a different way that the judges are appointed, I believe that in the next presidental term there will be a number of the judges leaving the bench for different reasons, leaving the next president making the balance of liberals and conversatives currently seated, unbalanced. This unbalance I believe will not be good for the United States, whether it be a court filled with liberals or conservatives.
2 people like this
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
16 Aug 08
Well yeah because I think that Liberals tend to have a little more ok a lot more open minded thinking. And with that, I will just sit and wait for the onslaught lol.
1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
15 Aug 08
Well, I guess it depends where you sit. I don't always agreee with the decisions they render. The last one I disagreed with was the decisions to allow enemy combatants to question their detainment in civilian courts. The last one I agreed with was the decision that fire arms are an individual right. The court right now is pretty devided on the conservative/liberal lines so I think we have a pretty good balance. The positions they render and rule upon should be based on constitutional law and no, I agree they should not nessesarily be legislating from the bench.
2 people like this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
16 Aug 08
Legislating from the bench is one of the biggest problems with our current system. The first thing I learned while studying law is that judges have more legislative power than the entire legislative branch since one judge can singlehandedly make a new law through use of precedent. Our legislative branch however requires debates and votes to even get a law through to the judicial branch.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
15 Sep 08
The Supreme Court (unlike all the other courts in the US) was actually set up as a political entity. Since it is part of the "Checks and Balances" of the Federal Government, it was supposed to be effected by the Legislative and Executive Branches. After all, those checks and balances go all three ways.
That being said though, I agree with you that our Justices have forgotten what their jobs are. You are right, they don't care what the facts are in the case, they don't even care about the one and only thing they are supposed to care about while making decisions (what the U.S. Constitution says).
The Supreme Court is supposed to be a political entity, but that is no excuse for the Justices to be incompetent.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
15 Aug 08
I lost all faith in the supreme court when dismissed the suit against Clinton for waging an illegal war in former Yugoslavia. Congress voted against his war 427 to 2 and he went to war anyway. When they sued Clinton over the war the supreme court dismissed the suit which basically means any president can wage an illegal war without congressional approval. For all the flack that Bush gets at least he made sure he had the support of congress before he attacked Iraq.
1 person likes this
