Since O'Connor retired from the Supreme Court, the journalists and columnists have been unloading nonstop about the Constitution and the Supreme Court and the problems therein. Here's the root of the issue:
The Constitution is not very specific about a lot of things. So when the Supreme Court has to apply it to a specific case, it is often unfortunately ambiguous. To make matters worse, our society has evolved so much in these two hundred years that even if the Constitution had been very specific, it still wouldn't cover a large part of the Supreme Court cases today.
So what do the justices do? When it's not black and white, we've moved out of absolutes and stepped into a matter of opinion.
This opinion thing creates a flaw out of the provision that a simple majority of nine selected (not elected) people can determine the meaning of the Constituition when applied to a specific case. If the decision was 9-0, even if it was an opinion, there might not be too much controversy over whether they made the right decision. But, oh, when the Supreme Court decides 5-4!
How do we know that that's the right decision, that it's the correct interpretation of the law? If one of the 5 voters switched, than the complete opposite decision would be made. There are a hundred different scenarios for that possibility, and the fact that it could happen so easily shows that any 5-4 decision is unreliable. How can five people set in stone the meaning of the Constitution if almost as many other people disagree? It's like it's all up in the air. Since there's so much disagreement, how can we be sure that the 5 side has made the right decision?
It's a fundamental flaw. It worked before because Supreme Court justices didn't link themselves to parties and ideologies, and were actually more concerned about what the Constitution said. Now every potential nominee is labeled as "conservative" or "liberal." It's not a group of people interperting the Constitution anymore. It's a nine-member congress that the President can't veto.
How do we solve this, then? I don't exactly know. I know this much: when there is a case that the Constitution does not adequately cover, whether by being too general or too outdated, then it is something for the people or their elected representatives to decide, not nine justices without check or balance. So there has to be some way to move these cases into the public arena, or at least the Congressional arena, for debate and discussion that results in action. Not only does this increase of involvement ensure that the fate of the nation is not hinged upon five people's opinions, but it ensures that democracy is still a part of our so-called democracy.
I haven't worked out specifics on when such transfer should happen or how it should work, but I know that, if done right, it would be much better than the system we have now. The Constitution needs amending.
Edmond the Hun
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Agh. Suffice it to say I agree ~ I don't feel like getting all worked up at the moment lol (i.e. don't get me started)^^ There's 2 sides to this: the Voice of Doom which reminds you that nothing will change in the next 100 except to further our descent to Perdition. and the Cheery Cheerleader who says "like, just get involved and make a difference!" She unites with other cheerleaders (aka Mrs. Dampf)to set things in motion, or at least scream her opinion. I'm not sure who I'm with yet, being still in the company of Sir Procrastination the Undecided Knight of All Issues. There's a little excerpt from Don Quixote lol Anyhu, when you think of a way to save the world, let me know and i'll jump on the bandwagon 110%. :D I do wonder if the Justices realize the magnitude of their decisions sometimes or if they just..i dunno...feel like they are doing their best. I wonder if their best involves conniving and whatnot. agh i hate conundrums!!! -Sanguine
p.s.
100 refers to years. that totally spoils my drama rant thing darnit. and i'll drive the bandwagon ;)
Post a Comment