To be completely honest, my knowledge of the supreme court was already pretty surface level. I learned a lot through the videos I watched. It plays a huge part in the American governing system. With the way it runs, I was surprised to come to the understanding that the supreme court ensures that the Constitution is interpreted in a uniform way, in order to prevent the states from interpreting it differently. I am still not sure if I agree with that method of action or not, but the lifetime appointment of Supreme Court Justices I believes almost naturally forced them to make decisions based on personal opinion, especially if somehow there is some sort of lobbying with who is appointed, rather than making decisions based on the law or with the people of America in mind. Is this gerrymandering at an incredibly high stake?
The Court's decisions are often completely deduced depending on the party that appointed them, with the Justices appointed by Democratic presidents typically siding with liberal opinions and those appointed by Republican presidents typically siding with conservative opinions. I feel that this defeats the sole purpose of keeping a completely unbiased analytical take of the constitution. In general, if there were to be bias, it should be in the best interest of the people….right? Especially if decisions impact the entire country and have the power to shape our laws and society, I think as the federal government has control over this power, they should always have civilians first and foremost, leaving libertarian action to benefit the US. Do you think that they have been doing that recently?
Comments
Post a Comment