March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010
August 2010
September 2010 October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018 April 2018 May 2018 June 2018 July 2018 August 2018 September 2018 October 2018 November 2018 December 2018 January 2019 February 2019 March 2019 April 2019 May 2019 June 2019 July 2019 August 2019 September 2019 October 2019 November 2019 December 2019 January 2020 February 2020 March 2020 April 2020 May 2020 June 2020 July 2020 August 2020 September 2020 October 2020 November 2020 December 2020 January 2021 February 2021 March 2021 April 2021 May 2021 June 2021 July 2021 August 2021 September 2021 October 2021 November 2021 December 2021 January 2022 February 2022 March 2022 April 2022 May 2022 June 2022 July 2022 August 2022 September 2022 October 2022 November 2022 December 2022 January 2023 February 2023 March 2023 April 2023 May 2023 June 2023 July 2023 August 2023 September 2023 October 2023 November 2023 December 2023 January 2024 February 2024 March 2024
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30
31
News Every Day |

When the Supreme Court Makes a Mistake


What happens when the Supreme Court gets it wrong?

Misguided court decisions have altered the path of the nation in sadly demonstrable ways. And the question arises again from the series of sharply divisive rulings by the current court.

The short answer is: Not much can be done. In the American system, an edict from the high court is almost uniquely without check or balance. When justices err, the people suffer the consequences.

The only corrective is the high court itself, as future generations reconsider once-settled doctrines. But problems often get worse before they get better, because Supreme Court errors are rarely one-offs. When a cabal of justices goes astray, they tend to keep on going. Mistake follows mistake, and the boundaries of American freedom get squeezed.

Mistakes are, of course, in the eyes of the beholder. The current court’s decision to overrule Roe v. Wade wasn’t unwelcome to the sizable minority who oppose abortion rights. In their eyes, the Roe precedent was the mistake. But a more rigorous assessment awaits. There have been many high-court rulings that, while comforting to supporters, look abominable, even unconscionable in the fullness of time — cases that few rational jurists, left or right, would ever try to defend.

Taken together, the judicial errors of the past paint a tragic, almost mournful, picture of the court’s role in American history. Eugenics. Forced sterilization. Racial segregation. Internment for citizens based on ancestry.



“In our governmental system, the Supreme Court, on constitutional questions, is infallible, though, as everyone knows, no one of its members comes within sight or sound of infallibility,” averred Justice David Brewer, who served from 1889 to 1910.

Brewer knew what he was talking about, because he sat with a group of justices who were far more conservative than the nation they served. Their decisions damaged American life for generations, denying the government the power to combat the economic excesses of the Gilded Age while giving the imprimatur of the highest law in the land to discrimination and segregation.

The occasion for Brewer’s remark was a dinner feting the 25th anniversary of the investiture of that court’s great dissenter, John Marshall Harlan. By today’s standards, it’s hard to classify Harlan as a liberal or conservative — he is, in fact, claimed by both sides — but he shared with today’s liberals a sense of foreboding about the court’s impact on the country. His refuge was his faith in the power of dissent. And dissent he did — with a roar that continues to be heard through the centuries.

But an examination of Harlan’s most significant cases provides almost a civics-class primer on the ways that judicial mistakes can linger and do great harm before finally being overcome. And it reveals that there is no single route to reconsideration.

The easiest path — but one less likely to provide optimism for abortion rights supporters — is simple persuasion. In 1895, the nation’s economy was being strangled by monopolistic trusts. Conservative justices were alarmed by the prospect of antitrust prosecutions under the newly approved Sherman Antitrust Act. When the Cleveland administration tried to break up the sugar trust — the lowest-hanging fruit in the orchard of trusts, controlling 98 percent of sugar manufacturing — the justices balked. A convoluted majority led by Chief Justice Melville Fuller insisted that control of manufacturing did not, in itself, indicate an intent to control prices.

Shockingly, Harlan was the only justice who saw the fallacy in this, rebutting, “Was it necessary that formal proof be made that the persons engaged in this combination admitted in words that they intended to restrain trade or commerce? Did anyone expect to find in the written agreements which resulted in the formation of this combination a distinct expression of purpose to restrain trade or commerce?”

This was no small matter: In industry after industry, manufacturers were banding together and cutting exclusive deals with railroad operators to drive out competitors and set wages and prices. The vast extent of the problem seemed to force some of the same justices to alter their thinking. Shifting political winds and relentless criticism of the court’s logic changed the tide. By 1905 — only 10 years later — the court had reopened the door to government actions to break up monopolies.


For supporters of Roe, however, a change of heart by existing justices seems patently unlikely. The close margin on abortion rights — 5-4, as opposed to the court’s 8-1 ruling in the sugar-trust case — may give the impression that the court doesn’t have so far to go to reach a different result. But unlike the nascent world of antitrust in the 1890s, the dug-in nature of the moral, political and legal issues surrounding abortion rights suggests no reconsideration is in the offing, barring a change in the court’s lineup.

Shielding trusts from legal action wasn’t the only way the Supreme Court extended the Gilded Age: It also blocked efforts to impose an income tax on the wealthy, leaving the government to fund itself through tariffs on basic goods. Once again, a group of judicial conservatives decided that the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts and others who held great fortunes were the victims of government overreach.

But unlike the Sherman Antitrust Act, the income tax was hardly a new idea. It had been utilized to fund the Civil War, so the court couldn’t escape the impression that it was making up new rules to protect the wealthy. After the justices split 4-4, the chief justice coaxed an ailing colleague back to Washington to cast the deciding vote. Except he didn’t: While the ill jurist supported the income tax, another justice shifted his position against it. The air of behind-the-scenes skullduggery was furthered when Chief Justice Fuller ordered an abrupt announcement of the decision before the opinions were written.

Harlan railed against this, scorching the majority for cravenly upending a long-settled precedent; he also argued that forcing the government to rely on tariffs would be disastrous in a global war, when trade would evaporate.

His warnings resonated with the public. But opponents of the income tax seized on the ruling to block any progressive taxation for nearly two decades. Finally, seeking to quiet demands for a new tax to test the court’s mettle, Senate leaders instead agreed to begin the arduous process of amending the Constitution. They doubted the requisite three-quarters of states would ratify an income-tax amendment. They were wrong. Three and a half years later, after Wyoming, Delaware and New Mexico approved the Sixteenth Amendment on the same day, the tax was back to stay.

It was, however, the last time that a deeply contentious political issue was resolved through the amendment process. Changing the Constitution remains a long, hard road, as those seeking direct election of the president can attest.

The greatest tragedy of the court during Harlan’s years was its fast retreat on the rights of African Americans, an injustice not only to millions of people but to the spirit and plain wording of the Constitution. The court struck down federal civil rights protections, refused to enforce voting rights and allowed states to ban interracial education. It also endorsed the idea that separating Blacks and whites was wholly consistent with the Constitution’s equal-protection clause, as long as the accommodations were roughly equal.

That case, the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson, occasioned Harlan’s famous declarations that the “Constitution is color-blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among its citizens,” and that under the law, “the humblest is the peer of the powerful.”



Harlan’s dissent was immediately recognized by African Americans as a defining statement of purpose under the law, but drew little attention in the white world. A half-century later, though, it was adopted by Thurgood Marshall and other civil rights lawyers as a component of their legal case to overturn Plessy.

A new generation of justices recognized the tragic cost to Black people of racial separation. They also anticipated an inevitable backlash among white racists that would occur if the court were to demand desegregation. So they worked hard, over months and years, to project a unified front. When the court overruled Plessy in the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education, the vote was 9-0. It was an unambiguous message, a definitive statement.

Today’s supporters of the court’s decision to overrule Roe v. Wade invite comparisons with the saga of Plessy and Brown, as a way of showing that justices must follow their consciences over legal precedent. But the comparisons also reveal the vast distance in spirit between the Brown decision and that in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. While the Brown court recognized the potential disturbance to the county and spoke with one voice, the Dobbs majority couldn’t resist overturning abortion rights by a one-vote margin, all but challenging future justices to undo their work.

Flipping back and forth on a constitutional right based on a single change in court membership can’t help but undermine the force of the law and the court’s mystique. Thus, it might be predicted that Chief Justice John Roberts — whose concern for the court’s credibility led him to refrain from voting to overturn Roe — might now be reluctant to overturn Dobbs for the same reason. To prevail, abortion rights supporters would then need at least two changes in court membership plus the willingness of new justices to abandon any semblance of respect for precedent.

It’s a tall order, but one that may, in fact, represent the likeliest source of repeal. In Harlan’s era, the appeal to future generations was a cry for greater wisdom. Today, such appeals are more direct — to justices appointed with a different agenda.

Москва

Благотворительный фонд «Свет в руках» проведет Всероссийскую акцию «Росток памяти»

I was diagnosed with cancer aged 39… you are never too rich, too famous or too young, says Dr Philippa Kaye

Top 10 Love Affair Movies of the 2000s and 2010s

Top 5 Websites to Watch FREE Movies - TV Shows (No Sign up!)

Top 10 Emmanuelle Seigner Movies

Ria.city






Read also

Kitchen cupboard staple could be the key to thicker, healthier hair – and prevent balding

Just imagine how John Lennon’s ‘Imagine’ inspired the creation of Negros’ frontier town

Dodgers deferred payroll total rises to $915.5M after adding $50M more in catcher Will Smith’s deal

News, articles, comments, with a minute-by-minute update, now on Today24.pro

News Every Day

The 10 Intense New Action Movies on Netflix That Left Me on the Edge of My Seat!

Today24.pro — latest news 24/7. You can add your news instantly now — here


News Every Day

The 10 Intense New Action Movies on Netflix That Left Me on the Edge of My Seat!



Sports today


Новости тенниса
Дарья Касаткина

Теннисистка Касаткина отреагировала на высказывания Винер о россиянах



Спорт в России и мире
Москва

«Радио Зенит» – информационный партнер форума «Мы вместе. Спорт»



All sports news today





Sports in Russia today

Москва

Актера Свиридова госпитализировали из-за инфицирования после операции в Москве


Новости России

Game News

Пробный запуск вампирского градостроя Vampire Legacy: City Builder


Russian.city


Алексей Сёмин

Энергетические поля компенсируют растущие потребности в электроэнергии


Губернаторы России
БГАТОиБ

ДИРЕКТОР БРХК ВЛАДИМИР КОЖЕВНИКОВ ПРОВЁЛ "КЛАССНУЮ ВСТРЕЧУ" ДВИЖЕНИЯ ПЕРВЫХ


В метрах от спада: есть ли риск кризиса на российском рынке жилья

Педагогическая дилемма: почему учителя не хотят работать в школах

Он обещал — вернулся: сможет ли Минаков перебить Томпсона

СК возбудил уголовное дело из-за впавшего в кому россиянина в Таиланде


Как Розенбаум судился с мусорщиками, Шнур прогорел на «Пушкине», а Нагиев заработал 4 тысячи рублей за год

Певица Диана Арбенина объяснила, почему уехала из России

Аранжировка Песен. Аранжировка Музыки. Создание Аранжировок.

Концерт благотворительного фонда Владимира Спивакова прошел в Солнечногорске


Российская теннисистка Калинская покинула WTA-1000 из-за проблем со здоровьем

Александрова впервые войдет в топ-15 мирового рейтинга

Хачанов: хочу вернуться в топ-10 ATP

Виктория Азаренко вышла в полуфинал турнира WTA-1000 в Майами



Заказать недорогой ремонт кухонной мебели в районе в Москве и Московской области

Шапки женские вязаные на Wildberries, 2024 — новый цвет от 392 руб. (модель 466)

Топливному компромиссу между Украиной и Азербайджаном пришел конец?

Рынок вторичной недвижимости Крыма: цены растут, а спрос?


Выпуск ЦФА на платформе «Атомайз» поможет снизить нагрузку на экологию

Среднее число детей на одну женщину в России. Статистика

Всем по местам: в России назвали топ благополучных регионов

Новые цены на жилье утвердили в России


Директора «Росатома» задержали по делу о получении особо крупной взятки

В Москве пройдут показы музыкальной драмы «Le prince André. Князь Андрей Болконский»

Атомная взятка потребовала ареста // Топ-менеджер «Росатома» Геннадий Сахаров отправлен в СИЗО на два месяца

Суд в Москве арестовал за взятку в особо крупном размере топ-менеджера Росатома Сахарова



Путин в России и мире






Персональные новости Russian.city
Сергей Шнуров

Музыкант Устьянцев: Сергей Шнуров — профессионал, а Жуков — «балалаечка»



News Every Day

Top 10 Love Affair Movies of the 2000s and 2010s




Friends of Today24

Музыкальные новости

Персональные новости