Worst supreme court decisions12/10/2023 ![]() ![]() Madison, when the Supreme Court established the principle of judicial review, i.e. In fact, it is arguable that the primary role of the judicial branch is to protect the minority. This role has fallen to the Supreme Court. Who gives the Constitution a voice, ensuring it is not merely a set of assembly instructions for setting up a new government, but instead remains an ongoing binding restriction on the government once established? Who stands up for the minority, for the individual? Who faces down the majority, reminding them that, irrespective of whether or not benefits flow to the many, the Constitution demands that the costs not be arbitrarily imposed upon the few? interfere in someone’s most personal decisions about marriage, childbearing, or what they eat or drink or smoke?.impinge on someone’s exercise of religion, or.arbitrarily take away someone’s livelihood, or.intern people deemed dangerous due to their heritage, or.convert private property to public benefit without just compensation, or. ![]() What if the majority decides that it is in the public interest to: The answer is more apparent if we instead ask who is responsible for protecting the interests of the minority. So, if the needs and whims of the majority are taken care of by the executive and legislative branches, why do we need the judiciary? Our republican government eliminated many of the unpleasant excesses of mob rule, but every two and four years, the mob, err majority, can still enforce its will via congressional and presidential elections. Nevertheless, the whims of the majority are presumed to command the full and complete attention of its elected representatives, each of whom passionately aspires to remain an elected representative. Both the executive and the legislative branches are actually beholden to special interests and populated by power-hungry unscrupulous scoundrels.) The legislative branch (Congress) will constantly seek to bribe voters with their own money. We realize that in practice, the executive branch (the president) is likely to devolve into bureaucratic despotism if it can get away with it. In theory, the interests of the majority are the sole focus of the popularly-elected legislative and executive branches. Critically, it also serves to balance the rights of the majority and the minority. It prevents any one actor from doing too much mischief. It prevents any one branch from amassing too much power. ![]() This political three legged stool is designed to provide checks and balances. (Skip context and go to the decisions)Įveryone who has fitfully slumbered through 7th grade social studies class remembers that the US system is divided into three branches the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. Any such list is subjective, so here is some context for our choices. We’ve compiled a list of the ten worst decisions below. So of these tens of thousands of decisions, which ones were absolute stinkers, the worst of the worst? Let’s face it – render that many decisions and not all of them are going to be good ones. The Court used to hear more, but even using current metrics, 80 cases a year for a few hundred years is a lot of decisions. It accepts (grants certiorari) and renders decisions on approximately 80 cases. Each year, the United States Supreme Court receives 7-8,000 petitions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |