jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (5 posts)

How have Supreme Court Decisions actually resolved the underlying issues of the

  1. bradmasterOCcal profile image31
    bradmasterOCcalposted 2 years ago

    How have Supreme Court Decisions actually resolved the underlying issues of the case?

    The Supreme Court hears issues that are of great concern, and couldn't be resolved at the courts below them.
    The question is did the SC when he heard the case and made a decision on it, did it resolve the issue, or did it just make a decision of law.

    For example, Roe v Wade was decided by the SC in 1974, and it is still an issue today. This suggests that the SC decision didn't really Resolve the issue of Abortion, it just made a decision that is now the law of the land. And are 5-4 decisions evidence that the issue wasn't resolved, as four of the justices couldn't agree?

    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/12740019_f260.jpg

  2. RonElFran profile image99
    RonElFranposted 2 years ago

    I think you are exactly right. The Roe v Wade decision not only did not resolve the issue of abortion, but by lifting it out of the realm of politics, and instead imposing a fiat from an unelected and un-deposable power group, it cut off any political resolution. Positions on both sides hardened as one side tried to protect the advantage handed it by the judiciary, and the other fought what they considered the illegitimate imposition of the values of an unaccountable power elite. In other words, the SC made it much more difficult for the body politic to ever come to any kind of concord on the issue.

    IMO, the SCOTUS cannot resolve societal issues. It can only codify in law what the society itself decides. Another case in point is the Dred Scott decision, which was supposed to settle the issue of slavery once and for all. It did anything but; in fact, it generated such outrage that it became a contributing factor to the Civil War and the final downfall of American slavery.

    When the SC is perceived as making law instead of interpreting the law, its rulings will be seen as illegitimate, and will not be accepted, by large segments of the populace. That's not only disruptive to the political process, it's also dangerous to the standing of the Court itself.

    1. bradmasterOCcal profile image31
      bradmasterOCcalposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Ronald
      You comment was not only brilliant, but it was eloquent. I can't see a better answer, so I gave this the best answer.

  3. My Esoteric profile image91
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    There is no issue that is ever resolved by any court or any law, by your criteria, as there will always be one philosophical side or the other disagreeing with it.

    Even the Constitution is not "resolved" as it has been amended several times and what it says has been hotly debated ever since its ratification.

    But, in practical terms, it is resolved because 1) it is used to base other lower court decisions on and 2) will remain so until it is overturned, if it ever is.

    1. bradmasterOCcal profile image31
      bradmasterOCcalposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Welcome
      I have to disagree, but you knew that.
      A decision settles the law, but it is not the same as resolving the issue.  King Solomon is an example of resolving an issue.

 
working