Currently 9 men and women comprise the Supreme Court of the United States. It has not always been 9 members. This supreme court of the land includes men and women who are appointed by president and confirmed by the senate. My contention is these are ruling parties and therefore skew the court to there own liking. Judges are supposed to be impartial, but they are just people. Some judges are better at following the constitution and law than others.
As the court is about to rule on some high profile cases it is essential we remember Plessy v Ferguson in which SCOUS ruled states had an obligation to segregate schools, lunch counters (separate but equal) etc.
"My contention is these are ruling parties and therefore skew the court to there own liking."
This has been my complaint for years. Who would wish to go to court with a judge who leans anyway but the middle. The impartiality should remain impeccable and without cause for recourse. If you listen to the senate confirmation hearings when they are charged in confirming these judges you are taken to liberal heaven and conservative la la land with the questions and the answers they want to hear. I love the hypothetical questions especially as the inquisitors back the nominee into a corner to explain their feelings on a made up situation paraphrasing supposed related testimony to manipulate a stand. Each case is different and should stand on its own merit which requires a impartial determination. Unfortunately what we have now are conservative and liberal plants by both parties.
Its almost like a Tribal Council vote on Survivor where one alliance gangs up on the other. The real heartburn is when one burns their alliance.
I would not say that the court decision obligated the states in question to employ Jim Crow, it just allowed them to do so.
Your statement is totally incorrect. In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court did not rule that states had an obligation to segregate schools, lunch counters, etc.. To the contrary, the court ruled in a 7-1 decision that Louisiana’s Separate Car Act (1890) did not violate either the 13th Amendment, which prohibited slavery, or the Fourteenth Amendment, which granted full and equal citizenship to Black Americans.
For more about the legal nuances debated by the court, I suggest...
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top … v-Ferguson
Meanwhile, I am looking forward to a vigorous debate about impartiality.
Quilligrapher, You are absolutely correct, and the resulting outcome was since, segregation when separate but equal, was totally within the constitution guidelines states therefore had the right to do so.
by My Esoteric5 months ago
My thought is No, they should go ahead and filibuster Judge Gorsuch now and not wait. The fear of filibustering now is that the Rs might use the "Nuclear Option" - using a simple majority to change...
by Akriti Mattu2 years ago
Personally, i feel it's a huge leap forward. What are your views ?
by niall.tubbs7 years ago
I don't know anyone in America that doesn't support the freedom of religion. Why do you ask?
by Susie Lehto17 months ago
Have you ever wondered how much money from taxpayers goes to illegal immigrants in your state? In 2013, taxpayers shouldered $100 billion in state spending on illegal aliens!U.S. State Infographs: ...
by Person of Interest5 years ago
"Republicans and Democrats are girding for a politically explosive week as the Supreme Court prepares to rule as early as Monday on the federal health care overhaul."http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06...
by pmccray7 years ago
I like to read the opinion of my fellow hubbers regarding the ruling struck down by the Supreme Court today. It seems that the all Republican appointees struck down a ruling regarding regulation of corporations'...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.