I have developed a distaste for the Supreme Court and the system that is established in the Constitution. I believe that it is the duty of each Justice to analyze constitutional facts and legislative fact and make a determination as to whether or not laws align with constitutional FACT. I believe that the Supreme Court acts independent of the constitution, without regard for what is morally and constitutionally right. My first problem is in reference to the “majority rules” idea. Let me set forth a scenario. Me and a man in Tokyo are observing a white wall. We are both healthy, understand the English language (Americanized) and have a basic understanding of the United States Constitution. If we ONLY analyze the factual characteristics of this wall we will ALWAYS come to the same conclusions. We will both agree that the wall is white. Any other healthy man that understands Americanized English and the Constitution will agree. Because what is true (fact) will not vary from person to person, or place to place (assuming there are no cultural or language barriers). Assume the Supreme Court of the United States had analyzed the facts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. All nine Justices should come to the same conclusion, correct? If they are only analyzing facts and they all understand both legislative piece that they are analyzing and the constitution, shouldn’t they all come to one conclusion? They should! Why is it that 4 Justices came to one conclusion while 5 justices came to an opposite conclusion? Are they not to analyze facts? I believe it is flawed and shame on the founding fathers for allowing such a flaw.
Second problem. Why are Justices allowed to be affiliated with political parties? How can the American populous expect a fair and unbiased judgment of an individual has been affiliated with a political party, or advocated for a law as a member, or former member of a political party? I believe that Justice Kagan and perhaps Justice Sotomayor should not have been allowed to vote on this law, correct?
Categorized | Featured Articles
On The Supreme Court?
Posted on July 25, 2012.
The Constitution is what makes the US, the US. We can’t ignore it. We can’t change it without abiding by it.
Making judgments about moral and other issues is not as simple as identifying the color of a wall. If objective truth in morality was easily identifiable, we WOULD all have the same beliefs, but we don’t, because it’s not.
Justices are not party members; they are simply identified, by their past records of judgment, as “liberal” or “conservative”. The political parties in turn align these positions with their respective party ideologies.
These ideologies represent the moral beliefs from which judges arrive at conclusions. Once again, these beliefs derive from matters about which objective truth has not or cannot be reached.
There are a few things wrong with your argument, in my view:
You make the claim that if every judge performed an objective analysis of the constitution under the same set of circumstances, they would all come the same conclusion every time. This isn’t the case, and you cannot reasonably expect it to be. Of course, a question like “is the wall white” is a very simple issue that can be easily answered one way or another. However, most issues of constitutional law are not clear-cut and the constitution doesn’t usually explicitly state exactly what to do in a given situation.
Here, for instance is a more realistic scenario (in fact the court actually ruled on this): the 8th amendment forbids “cruel and unusual punishment”, however it doesn’t state what that actually means. Most of us know what the words mean, but there is plenty of room for debate as to whether or not any given situation actually constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment”. For instance, I believe that the death penalty is excessively cruel and should be forbidden by the 8th amendment. However, plenty of people disagree, and there is no hard-and-fast way to answer that question.
Here’s another example- the 1st amendment protects free exercise of religion. That should be clear-cut, right? Well, no, there is room for debate there. For instance, suppose someone’s religion promoted human sacrifice. Would that mean that they should be permitted to commit murder because their religion required it? Where do you draw the line? The constitution doesn’t say. (The court ruled in that case that if a law has a “clear secular purpose” then it is valid against someone’s religious beliefs).
So no, it is not a reasonable expectation that every justice would always come to the same conclusion. For simple questions of fact, they should, however most cases that reach the supreme court are not simple cases of fact. On top of that, the language used in the constitution is complex and archaic, and there is plenty of room for interpretation and debate as to what it actually means.
In the case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the constitution doesn’t say “the government can require people to buy health insurance of pay a penalty”, but it contains numerous terms about the governments ability to control commerce. What they mean, and whether they apply, can be debated either way.
Your discussion is patently false. The Justices are allowed to have opinions, and they are not “associated” with any political party. As a conservative, you’re upset about ACA, but you don’t know why.
Stfu you’re a hypocrite. I don’t mind you being white but you say that America is fair and all, really? They’re ******* racist. When a white person kills 10 people oh he must of been depressed let’s not do anything just ask him questions, but if he was muslim, african american, or hispanic they would’ve shot them dead on the spot and say oh they were a threat to our country. Amrica is corrupt and only cares and protects white dumbasses like you.