Polarized Court Analysis
Prior jurisprudence says a lot about the Supreme Court today. The Warren Court—one of the most memorable Court’s in our nations history—hit many hot button issues of its time. An interesting juxtaposition is looking at the Roberts Court, who has had equally hot button issues of more recent times, and its approach.
When I reflect on the Warren Court I am mesmerized by its legacy and impact on a more equal society, specifically, Brown v. Board of Education. The unanimous decision, that took two years to decide, is one that should act as a model for all Courts thereafter as to the resolute need for a depolarized Court. A two-year deliberation followed by a unanimous decision would not have been the case if the Roberts Court had decided Brown.
United States v. Windsor, one of the most memorable civil rights cases’ of the current Court, was a 5-4 decision. The majority being Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan with the minority being …show more content…
If term limits were staggered, it would give every president the opportunity to appoint one or two, depending on term limits, which would increase the probability of appointed Justice’s being more diverse and coherent to a changing society. This, too, would preserve the original intention of shielding Justice’s from political pressure. Not that the Justice’s currently serving life terms are straying from the political pressure. With a predictable 4-4 split and a swing vote on the most controversial cases, it is clear the Framers intentions are far from living. Paul Carrington suggested 18-year terms, so a new judge could be appointed every two years.
It is most important to preserve the integrity of the Court. My comparison of the Warren Court to Roberts Court is to show how politics is crushing the ground the Court was built on, which might be a good thing (depending on your political