@ xurtio
that's interesting.. but i don't think that is what the supreme court is meant to do. i know you say it's not about what they should do but what they actually do, but i interpreted that as "in a perfect world... they should do x" where as the political reality doesn't allow that.
but as far as i understand the role of the supreme court, the role they are supposed to play is in ruling on legal cases on a federal level using logic and precedents derived from the constitution and previous legal rulings.
Quote:
Deciding Which Cases to Hear
Each year, the Supreme Court is asked to hear approximately five thousand cases. However, because of time and resource constraints and because not all cases are of equal merit, the Court selects only a handful to formally review.
When formal appeals are filed before the Supreme Court, legal briefs outlining the reasons behind the appeals are circulated among the Justices who sit on the Court. Justices then compile and circulate a "Discuss List" of cases that might warrant Supreme Court review. Finally, the Justices meet and vote on which cases to hear. The Court uses an informal "Rule of Four" in deciding whether or not to hear a case--only four of the nine Justices need to vote to hear a case. Through this process, the Court chooses 150 to 200 cases to hear each year.
As they narrow the number of cases on the "Discuss List," the Justices use several standards to determine whether or not a case is "justiciable." First and foremost, the Court must decide if it has jurisdiction in a case. If it does not, it will not hear the case. The Court has heard less than 200 original jurisdiction cases in its entire history. The Court will also generally refuse to rule on "political questions," cases that it believes are better addressed through the regular political process by other branches of government. Cases in which no real controversy or dispute exists will also be rejected by the Court--it will not address hypothetical questions. Similarly, the person or persons who bring cases before the Court must have "standing." They must be able to show that they have sustained "injury in fact," i.e. that they have been harmed in some real way. An individual who knows someone who is wrongfully imprisoned does not have standing to sue for his or her release (the imprisoned individual would have standing).
|
ThisNation.com--Supreme Court Decision Making
this is why politicians and polemics often whine about "activist judges" and the like.. the supreme court was never intended to act as a tool for implementing political agendas. of course the pragmatic reality is that presidents are elected and presidents get to appoint justices, and so presidents tend to appoint justices which conform to their ideological persuasion. even this is a sort of bastardization of the role the supreme court is supposed to fulfill.
but if you're saying the supreme court is just guided by popular opinion vs actual legalese logic then i'd say that makes the supreme court even more of a joke, to me. i would ask why not just make these decisions a matter of public referendum, if the qualifying criteria for a sound supreme court decision is public support. we really don't need judges to determine what the popular opinion is, if that's all that matters.