73
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Runners leave the Supreme Court in Washington with papers announcing court decisions. The Supreme Court is set to begin its new term as it ended the last one, down one justice and ideologically deadlocked on a range of issues.
WASHINGTON >> The Supreme Court is set to begin its new term as it ended the last one — down one justice and ideologically deadlocked on a range of issues.
The absence of a ninth justice since Antonin Scalia’s death in February has hamstrung the court in several cases. It’s forced the justices to look for less contentious issues on which they’re less likely to divide by 4-4.
It could be several months, at least, before the nation’s highest court is again operating at full strength.
How the presidential election turns out will go a long way toward determining the judicial outlook of the ninth justice, the direction of the court and the outcome of several cases already being heard and others that probably will be at the court soon.
Aren’t they suppose to decide cases based on the law and constitution. Why should ideology be so important.
Therein lies our quandary. Conservatives generally interpret the constitution as it was written, while liberals interpret it as they feel it ought to have been written. What is genuinely inspiring about the document is it’s ongoing relevance, it’s ability to transcend generations and remain foundational for our nation’s guidance.
Yes, I agree with most of what you say but Conservatives and Liberals really have different understandings of the words that were written. One of the most interesting and meaningful decisions of the Court came when the Court repudiated Plessy v. Ferguson in Brown v. Board of Ed… Earl Warren had been conservative all of his life but he understood what the Constitution meant. His majority decision in this case was a thing of beauty to read.
Agreed. Even the oft misunderstood 2/3rds clause, once dissected as to causations, reflects a genuine concern for the well being of all within this nation. “http://www.blackpast.org/aah/three-fifths-clause-united-states-constitution-1787” gives a view of it’s birth. With respect to “separate but equal”, nothing in the constitution, aside from the 2/3 clause, could be construed as supporting it’s continuation. Possibly the most important reasoning behind maintaining a conservative court involves it’s hesitancy to pioneer social change rather than simply confirm it’s alignment with the Constitution. We’ve advanced societally in steps, usually with eventual recognition of better paths gradually acknowledged as morally right. Once time confirms such, the court has the responsibility to put it’s legal stamp on it’s acceptance, as long as it’s mandates align with Constitutional criteria.
wassup, sa?
Agreed. Even the oft misunderstood 2/3rds clause, once dissected as to causations, reflects a genuine concern for the well being of all within this nation. “http://www.blackpast.org/aah/three-fifths-clause-united-states-constitution-1787” gives a view of it’s birth. With respect to “separate but equal”, nothing in the constitution, aside from the 2/3 clause, could be construed as supporting it’s continuation. Possibly the most important reasoning behind maintaining a conservative court involves it’s hesitancy to pioneer social change rather than simply confirm it’s alignment with the Constitution. We’ve advanced societally in steps, usually with eventual recognition of better paths gradually acknowledged as morally right. Once time confirms such, the court has the responsibility to put it’s legal stamp on it’s acceptance, as long as it’s mandates align with Constitutional criteria.
Well, I had a reply for you, but this rag’s editorial clods have it frozen, for reasons only known to them. Suffice it to say, I agree with your take, and with respect to Warren, since no portion of the Constitution offered specifics, his recognition of long standing societal evolution prompted his confirmation.
I suppose “better late than never” ought to be considered…