Quote:
Originally Posted by rhadin
If Cote is upheld, I will accept it. I will believe it is correct and sound legal reasoning as much as I believe the Citizen's United and the Bush v. Gore decisions are sound nonpartisan legal decisions, or that the Hobby Lobby case would have been decided as it was if the justices weren't driven by their personal Catholic religious views.
All that the current Supreme Court can ever expect from thinking citizens is acceptance. Belief that they are well thought-out, sound legal decisions that will be remembered 100 years from now for incisive legal reasoning is an unreasonable expectation and one that none but perhaps Scalia would entertain.
|
Historically, the Supreme Court has always had a political aspect to it. Heck, until fairly recently, it was a place to pay off political favors. Taft became a Supreme Court justice some eight years after being president, Earl Warren was Governor of California before becoming a Supreme Court Justice.
Anti-Trust law tends to be very uncertain. There are 3 basic antitrust laws, The Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. No major changes other than those laws, yet the same basic laws have been interpreted quite differently by various judges over the years. The Leegin case was decided in a 5-4 decision by Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito. All are on the current court.
In the American judicial system, it's important that the Supreme Court be accepted as having the final say, right or wrong. That's probably about as much as one can ask.