Comments about ‘Supreme Court justices get defensive when losing a vote, BYU study says’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, July 29 2013 1:11 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

“...when the justices write dissenting opinions, intensifiers sneak into the language they choose. It all fits nicely with psychological theories suggesting humans become instinctively defensive when they suspect their beliefs and opinions may be threatened, Long said."
______________________________

Justices voting on the losing side may feel a need to vindicate their views but they tend to be careful in wording dissenting opinions that they know might provide language for a future revisiting of the issue, especially when the split is 5-4.

Justice Harlan was the solitary vote against Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. But 58 years later, his dissenting opinion was studied carefully in the Brown decision declaring separate inherently unequal. That decision was a 9-0 vote.

My2Cents
Taylorsville, UT

Its difficult to compare Supreme Court decisions of today with those of 50 or 100 years ago and some of their decisions are questionable as relative to the Constitution and its time to empower some changes in how the court is making decision and what they are considering as constitutional subjects.

The Supreme court has become political pawns for the administrative branch of government. The administration branch, president, is proposing laws to the supreme court before they are laws in hopes of having the supreme court write the laws and vilify a law before it is passed by our House and Senate legislators.

The legislative powers are absolute with the authority over administrative and judicial branches of government to modify or change as needed. Only the legislative government can change laws and nullify political supreme court decisions.

Make these changes to laws retroactive to nullify political mandates of supreme court. There fore the House with its 300+ representatives should be entitled to reverse Supreme court decisions in the same manner that they can block administrative abuse of power over the Supreme court. Also a justice nominee cannot be confirmed while that president is in office, including consecutive terms.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments