The Polarized Court
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 …show more content…
McDonald v. Chicago (gun control) was a 5-4 vote. Graham v. Florida (criminal sentencing) was a 5-4. Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (campaign finance) was a 5-4 vote. I regard these decisions as disturbing because what they are telling the people. This is not to suggest the Warren Court never had a 5-4 decision, for we know that to be false, in fact the Warren Court had few unanimous decisions, but as we reflect on the Warren Court we see a Court who expanded precedent for a more rights cognizance society. Future generations are not going to be reflecting on the Roberts Court saying the same thing. I fear its reputation could be unambiguous—in the worst …show more content…
Merrill and Northwestern 's James Lindgren on changing the Constitution by adding an amendment imposing term limits for Court Justice’s Lindgren stated “Term limits would help usher out judges with mental decrepitude and loss of stamina, eliminate strategic retirement for political reasons, reduce animosity in confirmation, and return to traditional levels of judicial independence.” While Merrill argued, “Term limits would recast the role of the court to reflect presidents’ political views, not the more subtle role prescribed in the Constitution.” But concluded, ““We’re stuck with a situation where justices effectively captured by their law clerks make decisions without necessarily referencing the views of the polity.” Both Professors make profound points as to the pros and cons of term limits for the
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 …show more content…
McDonald v. Chicago (gun control) was a 5-4 vote. Graham v. Florida (criminal sentencing) was a 5-4. Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (campaign finance) was a 5-4 vote. I regard these decisions as disturbing because what they are telling the people. This is not to suggest the Warren Court never had a 5-4 decision, for we know that to be false, in fact the Warren Court had few unanimous decisions, but as we reflect on the Warren Court we see a Court who expanded precedent for a more rights cognizance society. Future generations are not going to be reflecting on the Roberts Court saying the same thing. I fear its reputation could be unambiguous—in the worst …show more content…
Merrill and Northwestern 's James Lindgren on changing the Constitution by adding an amendment imposing term limits for Court Justice’s Lindgren stated “Term limits would help usher out judges with mental decrepitude and loss of stamina, eliminate strategic retirement for political reasons, reduce animosity in confirmation, and return to traditional levels of judicial independence.” While Merrill argued, “Term limits would recast the role of the court to reflect presidents’ political views, not the more subtle role prescribed in the Constitution.” But concluded, ““We’re stuck with a situation where justices effectively captured by their law clerks make decisions without necessarily referencing the views of the polity.” Both Professors make profound points as to the pros and cons of term limits for the