Supreme Court of the United States

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from United States Supreme Court)
Jump to: navigation, search
Part of a series on the

US Constitution

Standards of review
Other legal theories
Defining moments in law
Modalities of Constitutional Law

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) consists of nine lifetime appointed people who sit in judgment on whether or not laws (local, state, or federal) are in compliance with the US Constitution and have the final say on how the federal laws are to be interpreted. This power of the courts is called judicial review, and the precedent for its use by the SCOTUS was established in the 1802 case Marbury v. Madison. The Supreme Court also hears lawsuits between states, as with the recent suit against Colorado's legalization of marijuana.[1]

The members, or "associate justices," are appointed by the President, and take office upon confirmation by the Senate. The last time the Senate voted not to confirm an appointment to the Supreme Court was in 1987 with Robert Bork. Since justices are appointed for life, appointments are sometimes the most lasting legacy of a president.

One member, appointed the same way as the other justices, serves as "chief justice," who, although still only having one vote on cases, has the interesting and sometimes important power to assign the writing of majority decisions (when they are in the majority) to one of the associates. This can be used to influence the exact nature of a decision — the chief justice might vote with a four justice minority (or more importantly, a five justice majority) in order to assign the decision writing to a justice with a weaker stand than the other members of the majority.

In practice, the most powerful member of the Court is rarely the chief justice but the one or two "moderate" members who are very often the swing votes on contentious issues. Anthony Kennedy is purported to be one such justice on the current Court (see below).


[edit] Current bench

[edit] Republican/conservative majority

Due to the Roberts Court's conservative majority, its decisions have been some of the wackiest in many years.[2] Members of this five-man group include:

  • John Roberts (Chief Justice): A George W. Bush appointee, Chief Justice Roberts has opposed (of all things) the Endangered Species Act, and has been criticized for heading an "activist court"; the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, and Shelby County v. Holder debacles are commonly cited examples. On the other hand, he voted to uphold most of Obamacare as constitutional.
  • Antonin Scalia: Scalia thinks the Constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment does not apply to torture.[3] Yes, he was a Reagan appointee. Authored the dissent in Romer v. Evans, a landmark gay rights case. On a lighter note, noted for being a good (or at least entertaining) writer who enjoys cracking wise from the bench, for being something of a grammar Nazi in a way that has actually helped lawyers (spearheading efforts to rewrite procedural and evidentiary rules to make them easier to read and understand), and for actually being pretty good friends with his ideological opposite Ruth Bader Ginsburg (see below), having standing dinner, opera, and family vacation appointments with her.
  • Samuel Alito: He has argued that Congress cannot prevent private citizens from owning submachine guns. Guess who appointed him? Dubya, of course!
  • Clarence Thomas: A George H. W. Bush nominee, Thomas is the court's biggest wingnut, questioning Barack Obama's birth certificate[4] and believing that corporate and PAC sponsors of political advertising should not be required to disclose who paid for them.[5]
  • Anthony Kennedy: Nominated by Ronald Reagan, Kennedy is most definitely not one of "those" Kennedys. Said to be the court's swing vote, being the member who sits ideologically between the four left-wing members (see below) and the right-wing "Four Horsemen." In practice, though, Kennedy is a fairly reliable vote for conservative ideology,[6] albeit with a well-noted libertarian streak and emphasis on "human dignity" that largely explains his votes with liberals on social issues like gay marriage. Incidentally, should he vote with the liberals (with no others defecting), he chooses who will write the majority opinion as he is senior to all those in the liberal wing.

[edit] Democratic/liberal minority

[edit] Other supreme courts

Of the US states, 48 have a single court of last resort (called the Court of Appeals in Maryland and New York, the Supreme Judicial Court in Maine and Massachusetts, and the Supreme Court elsewhere). Oklahoma and Texas each have two courts of last resort, a Supreme Court for civil matters and a Court of Criminal Appeals for criminal matters. A state supreme court's interpretation of its state constitution and its state statutory and common law is final and is binding on both lower state courts and all federal courts, including (at least in theory) the Supreme Court of the United States. Federal courts may still adjudicate whether a state's constitution and laws conflict with the U.S. Constitution or federal law.

Also, many other countries have similar ultimate judicial arbiters with one name or another. They tend to be comparatively functional and non-partisan.

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

[edit] Footnotes

  1. Nebraska and Oklahoma Sue to Overturn Legal Weed in Colorado, Mother Jones
  2. Court Under Roberts is Most Conservative in Decades, The New York Times
  3. During his infamous 2008 interview on CBS 60 Minutes Antonin Scalia claimed that torture may be cruel and unusual, but it is not punishment because the prisoner has not yet been convicted of a crime. At that point it's just interrogation. Hear that, all you nightstick happy cops out there? You can beat the hell out of a suspect before he/she has been convicted, but not after!
  4. Supreme Court Rejects Appeal Over Obama's Citizenship, The New York Times
  5. "This Week in Crazy: Clarence Thomas"
  6. Which Supreme Court Justices Vote Together Most and Least Often, The New York Times
  7. Some people just can't tell the difference between treating women like actual human beings and hurting the feelings of sexist pricks.
  8. It goes to show that the less material criticism there is to work with, the more ridiculous the mudslinging will be.
  9. "Anti-capitalist!" "Radical leftist!" "Socialist autocrat!" "Revolutionary progressivism!" Good god, if you can't stomach using the "c" word, she probably isn't one.
Personal tools