Narrow The Scope, Narrow The Focus, Narrow The Decision?
SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts: Achieving Consensus Will Limit Supreme Court's Political Role
An interesting perspective. Roberts is making the argument that seeking consensus leads to a narrowing of the focus of the sitting SCOTUS justices. One has to ask if he has talked to some of his colleagues, especially Scalia and Thomas, who have recently moved into the mode of wide sweeping remarks, judgments and curse words, er gestures.
I disagree. I think the justices should seek out the points where dissent is present and voice them to the public. Somehow we have gotten into this mode of thinking that the Supreme Court has the final word on issues. If a case is heard, and dissents are voiced, there is room for similar cases to be heard on the merits of those dissenting voices on the SCOTUS panel. However, if the panel is unanimous, or has an overwhelming majority, then the dissent has less impact. Since the SCOTUS is a stacked deck at the moment, giving vast leeway to employers, big business and the government in almost every case being heard for the last five sessions of the court, we probably need as much dissent as possible to keep some hope of fairness of process available to the people. God only knows that the interests of the American people are not being protected by any part of the federal government while it is almost exclusively controlled by a single party that exhibits open bias in favor of business, employers and government.
Someone ought to paste a copy of the Preamble to the Constitution to the chamber doors of each justice so that they can be reminded every day that they are supposed to be serving the people, not business, government or the wealthy.
Chief Justice John Roberts said Sunday he is seeking greater consensus on the Supreme Court, arguing that more consensus among justices is likely if hot-button issues are decided on the "narrowest possible grounds."
An interesting perspective. Roberts is making the argument that seeking consensus leads to a narrowing of the focus of the sitting SCOTUS justices. One has to ask if he has talked to some of his colleagues, especially Scalia and Thomas, who have recently moved into the mode of wide sweeping remarks, judgments and curse words, er gestures.
He said the nation benefits if unelected justices can avoid making 5-4 decisions that have sweeping impact, noting that many of the Court's most controversial decisions -- from presidential wartime powers to political boundaries in Texas -- will be decided in the final six weeks of the current term.
I disagree. I think the justices should seek out the points where dissent is present and voice them to the public. Somehow we have gotten into this mode of thinking that the Supreme Court has the final word on issues. If a case is heard, and dissents are voiced, there is room for similar cases to be heard on the merits of those dissenting voices on the SCOTUS panel. However, if the panel is unanimous, or has an overwhelming majority, then the dissent has less impact. Since the SCOTUS is a stacked deck at the moment, giving vast leeway to employers, big business and the government in almost every case being heard for the last five sessions of the court, we probably need as much dissent as possible to keep some hope of fairness of process available to the people. God only knows that the interests of the American people are not being protected by any part of the federal government while it is almost exclusively controlled by a single party that exhibits open bias in favor of business, employers and government.
Someone ought to paste a copy of the Preamble to the Constitution to the chamber doors of each justice so that they can be reminded every day that they are supposed to be serving the people, not business, government or the wealthy.
posted by Jim Downey at 5:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home