Monday, March 06, 2006

Power of the courts

Bush's has pushed through his nominees for the Supreme Court, and with Sam Alito, the court is seen as possibly overturning the decision of Roe vs. Wade to at least some extent. What really interested me is the notion that the Supreme Court is like a "back-door" to establishing laws. It is (perhaps ?) easier to bring a case through the court system and have the SC issue its intepretation, which is binding, than having legislators pass or amend laws. Examples for this are Brown vs. Board of Education during Segregation, or Roe vs. Wade when there may not have been enough popular support for women's reproductive rights. This notion was alluded to in a way during Bush's SC nomination process such as 'restoring the court to its constitutional origins' and the SC is 'overstepping its bounds' as a 'rogue court'.

Reading this expert from To Kill a Mockingbird makes me think, though, that the Supreme Court's "power" acting as it has is nothing beyond its mandate.

"But there is one way in this country in which all men are created equal - there is one human institution that makes a pauper the equal of a Rockefeller, the stupid man the equal of an Einstein, and the ignorant man the equal of any college president. That institution, gentlemen, is a court. It can be the Supreme Court of the United States of the humblest J.P. court in the land, or this honorable court which you serve. Our courts have their faults, as does any human institution, but in this country our courts are the great levelers, and in our courts all men are created equal."
(Finch defending Tom Robinson)


What do you think the future of the court will be? do you think there will be any chance of the SC making a ruling on same-sex marriage as has been done in Canada and Spain? And randomly, what are your thoughts on restrictions on abortion?

2 comments:

Phillip said...

Same-sex marriage- legalize it. The legal insitution of marriage should not be restricted to a Judeo-Christian definition based on the separation church and state.

Abortion- the tricky part here for me is at what point is ending the life of a child considered murder? Surely murdering a newborn baby is a crime. Is it a crime the day before? Two months before? Eight months before?

Up to some point however I think it should be legal, because if a woman decides to destroy all her eggs one day, no one's going to say that's a crime. As with the argument above, it's hard to say when it goes from non-crime to crime - at fertilization? Three months after? Once the baby is finally born?

I think it's fortunate the court only seems to truly become an issue over, well, minor or grey-area issues like abortion. If that's the biggest change a court might make, that's not so bad. It's when it's doing much more unconscionable things like condoning murder or disenfranchising people (or the many decisions leading up to those obvious reversals of justice and democracy) when something has gone seriously wrong. Up to this point I'd say things are basically ok, even with Bush's nominees.

The Mockingbird quote was pretty interesting, perhaps voting is another place where all men are equal, or maybe only in theory, I think Tim said once it's the ability to influence a large number of votes that constitutes true power in the voting process, and I agree with that. But the court does seem to do a much better job.

Dan said...

In the next few years, the court is going to lean to the right. Hopefully it'll switch back to the center b4 abortion is restricted.

There's no chance any time soon that the SC will make a ruling on same-sex marriage as has been done in Canada and Spain. Maybe public opinion on same-sex marriages will change once baby boomers start dying; (sorry if this sounds morbid).

I'm pro-choice and against any restrictions on abortion. My main reason for my stance is that restrictions on abortion hinders social mobility.