I find it both amusing and disturbing that the US Supreme Court’s decisions are so often 5-4. Aren’t they supposed to be interpreting the US Constitution and defining the law of the land?
Many people consider the US Constitution to be one of the finest documents ever written. If it is so well written then why is it so hard for the greatest legal minds in the land (Supreme Court Justices) to reach any agreement on its meaning, intentions and objectives?
The number of close decisions made by the Supreme Court indiciates one of three or fourt things regarding the Constitution. It is either vague, impossible to understand, or inconsistent. A fourth possibility is that it can be adapted to anyone’s personal agenda.
If any of the above conclusions are true it would point to a need for the Constitution to be rewritten. If the above conclusions are not true then it means that the Supreme Court is a sham and the justices are ignoring the document and making their decisions based on political and religious agendas.
Laws are not something that should depend on which people are reviewing them. Our laws shouldn’t depend on which president selected them. Our laws should be relatively politically party nuetral.
The laws of nature, physics and math are not so arbitrary. The is no 5-4 decision amongst teachers that 2 + 2 = 4, or amongst scientists that gravity exists. Now, there is always room for exceptions to rules such as the limits of Newtonian laws of physics in specific macro or micro environments, yet by in large these rules exist because of the general concensus regarding their truth and utility.
Laws should be based on clearly defined terms and on the bulk of evidence currently at one’s disposal. Laws can change when times and information change. When the bulk of psychological studies showed that various forms and amounts of corporal punishment cause significant harm to the recipients of these physical interventions, then laws were passed prosecuting those who abuse others. Until future studies refute or disprove these conclusions then the laws should stand.
One would think that 5-4 decisions are more a sign of opinion and not a matter of law. Laws should be about issues of general importance and agreement. If the most respected legal minds in the country can not reach concensus then should their decision be considered law? Shouldn’t they consider that for something to qualify as a law it should be an agreed upon truth and not an arbritrary decision that nine other respected legal minds would disagree with?
How well would a football team function if 6 of the players left the huddle expecting a running play and 5 a pass?
How can a nation claim to be a leader or even a sane participant and have its most fundamental and important decisions be so arbitrary and politically based?
To reduce laws to politics and opinions is an act of absurdity and cannot be defined as a sign of intelligence and stability. And if laws are not intended to insure stability and consistency then what are they designed to do?
The Supreme Court is functionally a joke, it is an insult to its intention and purpose and has become a source of division and confusion rather than the creator of order and safety.
Jim Guido
Got a chance to read this while waiting for my assessment. Very interesting point you make about the law and how the supreme court continues to make decisions. Valid indeed!!!