justices

But perhaps the fact that the justices nearly-unanimously agreed on its unconstitionality means it should not have existed?

But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not.

What's the value in having nine justices who all think a like and vote the same way?

Excuse me, non-American here, but a passage from an article linked within states[0]: > The nine justices request that U.

In reality public opinion and culture changed, and 5 justices decided to change the law.

Roberts and Kagan are the only justices I haven't found an example of where they were lone dissenters.

The justices, as aptly demonstrated recently (viz scalia, whose textualism has no meaning besides whatever his personal politics prefer) are politicians, no more.

Considering Samsung's been paying off justices & politicians for decades, it's very unlikely that they will lose any sort of legal battle in Korea.

The Justices all know that the modern death penalty is a failure.

So, to apply your reasoning, why shouldn't we fire the justices who decided Everson v.

Sure, it explains why justices tend to vote along ideological lines.

Is he really that arrogant and contemptuous of the liberal justices?

When that system arrives at a circumstance that implicates a conflicting set of Constitutional mandates, the design of the system is "fuck it, let smart judges chosen (at some remove) by the people resolve that." The justices are supposed to be referees.

("According to Justice Breyer’s concurrence, joined by Justices Scalia and Alito, the presumption of validity only provides protection against factual elements of an invalidity challenge.

The justices generally give greater weight to what he or she says than other third parties that take a side in a case, an influence which has caused the solicitor general to be dubbed the "tenth justice." Question: what the fuck?

The Constitution leaves that question to be decided by the people of each State." - "To prevent five unelected Justices from imposing their personal vision of liberty upon the American people, the Court has held that 'liberty' under the Due Process Clause should be understood to protect only those rights that are 'deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.’...

Justices do not make laws, they interpret and apply them, and must do so while being rationally bound and yes accountable to laws and precedent under the framework of common law.