Myth of the SCOTUS

What is this silly myth that in the SCOTUS, all receive equal justice under the law? Everyone acts as if that’s the case, pundits declare it, and yet it’s blatantly false. If it wasn’t, then judges wouldn’t be nominated, they’d be trained from the start, selected based on merit etc.

Equal justice is a huge topic. The supreme court may or may not be better at it than smaller courts, but either way it’s probably not caused by the court itself. SCOTUS uses the same constitution as the rest of the country.

As for training and selection – I think the idea is justices should come from the general public instead of an aristocratic style thing where only a certain few are chosen for that position. As far as I know all law schools provide the same training and judge selection is the same nationwide, so it’s not really necessary to have specific training for the supreme court.

 

The way the Republican majority of the US Senate treated the two last nominees by B. Obama and by D. Trump shows how political the process can be.

From La Fontaine, a French fabulist of the 17th: “Depending on whether you are powerful or miserable, court judgments will make you innocent or guilty.”

There is a pun, between the judiciary court and the king’s court.

In France, very roughly, we have 2 parallel systems of courts.

The first one, the judiciary system properly, treats the civil, criminal and, for instance, the disputes between employees and employers. The judiciary Supreme Court is “la Cour de Cassation” Court of Cassation.

Very roughly, the second one, the administrative courts, judges the cases involving civil service; most of the tax disputes and so. The Suprem Court is “le Conseil d’Etat”, the Council of State. Both institutions are derived from similar ones, existing in the times of the kings and reinstituted by Napoleon.

Most of the judges are recruited after university, by a national contest, with independent juries. Promotion is managed internally, with a system mixing seniority and merit. The political power does not interferes, except[GM1] for very high posts as president of one of the suprem Court, or general attorney at Paris.

Where the system becomes political is that we have over both system, a Constitutional Court, composed of 9 members, with 9 years mandates, 3 chosen by the President of the Republic, 3 by the President of the Senate, 3 by the president of the house of the deputies. The present president of the Constitutional Court is L. Fabius, an ex-Prime Minister of President Mitterrand

Surprisingly, even if many people reproach to the Court its excessive caution, it has not hesitated to cancel some important laws, including some related to the sanitary state of urgency.

Equal justice is a dream. We have a class justice, and individual magistrates work with their prejudices, their relationships.

SCOTUS may use the same constitution but that has nothing to do with it. It’s the interpretation of it that’s important, and why everyone wants “their guy” doing the interpreting. And I for one would much rather NOT have the judges come from the general public. Law schools don’t guard against unequal justice. If I’m not mistaken there are blatantly Christian law schools. Gee if the law is blind, why would these types of law schools even exist, or be allowed to exist? Because of the myth of equal justice. Similarly, I would much rather have juries be experts trained in logical reasoning, psychology, law obviously, etc. It wouldn’t be a perfect system of course, but it couldn’t get any worse than it is now.

Seems like quite a few people want professional juries. I doubt it would make anything more fair, but they would be “legal experts” at least.

And I for one would much rather NOT have the judges come from the general public. Law schools don’t guard against unequal justice. If I’m not mistaken there are blatantly Christian law schools. Gee if the law is blind, why would these types of law schools even exist, or be allowed to exist? Because of the myth of equal justice.
Christian law schools train students the same as any other schools. A lawyer from Georgetown isn't a catholic supremacist just because he went to a catholic university. A lawyer from Yale might be extremely religious even though they went to a secular school.

There is something to the idea that judges should not be “regular people” but I think that would set a dangerous precedent against democracy in the long term.

Equal justice from our Supreme Court. That’s a laugh, like millionaires who love the company of billionaires can know anything about equal justice.

Too much of what they know is the golden rule, he with the gold makes the rules.

aristocratic style thing where only a certain few are chosen for that position -- oneguy
what?

It costs money. Is that what you mean? But then you can get scholarships. There’s an exam. It pretty much takes merit to get to be a judge. Of course we saw how a corrupt President, backed by a compliant Senate can get around that, but even the two recent SCOTUS appointees had to pass the basic tests before getting the nomination. Hopefully voters are taking care of the “chosen few” problem.

It costs money. Is that what you mean? But then you can get scholarships. There’s an exam. It pretty much takes merit to get to be a judge. Of course we saw how a corrupt President, backed by a compliant Senate can get around that, but even the two recent SCOTUS appointees had to pass the basic tests before getting the nomination. Hopefully voters are taking care of the “chosen few” problem.
I mean only a certain class would be accepted into the legal profession. Class in the old fashioned sense of the term.
Equal justice from our Supreme Court. That’s a laugh, like millionaires who love the company of billionaires can know anything about equal justice.

Too much of what they know is the golden rule, he with the gold makes the rules.


SCOTUS has delivered equal justice many times. Interracial marriage is legal. Abortion is legal. Public discrimination is illegal, to name a few.

All thanks to the supreme court.

I mean only a certain class would be accepted into the legal profession. Class in the old fashioned sense of the term. -- oneguy
Your lack of understanding of how the world actually works sometimes astounds me.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/from-homeless-to-law-school-this-dallas-man-is-writing-his-own-story/ar-BB18y0Kj

That is a different topic. I’m talking about CuthbertJ’s comment on judges going through some different training process than what is already in place.

In the FOX alt-universe it may seem that way guy. But, the down to earth evidence tells a different story.

 

June 22, 2017 at 2:59 pm ET

SUPREME COURT A MILLIONAIRE’S CLUB

PublicIntegrity _ org/politics/supreme-court-a-millionaires-club/


 

Koch Justice: Billionaires Seek to Expand Influence over Law Enforcement and Courts in 2018

By David Armiak | July 23rd, 2018

exposedbycmd _ org/2018/07/23/koch-justice-billionaires-expand-influence-law-enforcement-courts-2018/


 

How the Supreme Court Favors the Rich and Powerful

BY ADAM COHEN, MARCH 3, 2020 7:00 AM EST
Cohen is the author of the new book Supreme Inequality: The Supreme Court’s 50-Year Battle for a More Unjust America
time - com/5793956/supreme-court-loves-rich/


 

 

 

 

SCOTUS has delivered equal justice many times. Interracial marriage is legal. Abortion is legal. Public discrimination is illegal, to name a few.
Those are good points. However, they came rather slow. The SCOTUS rarely leads us toward justice, it almost always follows after decades of injustice.

There’s a difference between a “good point” and a smoke screen.

 

There’s a difference between a “good point” and a smoke screen. -- CC
I try to be nice. In Braver Angels we call them "red facts" and "blue facts". It's a fact that the Supreme Court made gay marriage legal. There are also "blue facts". The states led on this, they were passing those laws so fast, SCOTUS had to do something. Before that, not that long ago, gay bars were places where people got the crap beat out of them and not much was done about it. Harvey Milk was killed by a fellow politician and he got off using "the twinkie defense". Gay people were strung up and left to die on barb wire fences. They didn't start having pride parades for no reason.

 

Those are good points. However, they came rather slow. The SCOTUS rarely leads us toward justice, it almost always follows after decades of injustice.
Justice always comes slow in a liberal democracy. Unless you’re in favor of vigilantism there’s no other way.
It’s a fact that the Supreme Court made gay marriage legal. There are also “blue facts”. The states led on this, they were passing those laws so fast, SCOTUS had to do something.
SCOTUS didn't have to do anything. It did something because the justices were mostly in favor of legalizing gay marriage. They could have left it as a states issue without any problems.
They could have left it as a states issue without any problems. -- oneguy
The obvious problem there, someone gets married in one state, then moves to another. Or, like many people, a married couple has a spouse working in two different states.

Good discussion. But I guess the bottom line is, there’s an underlying reason why groups, politicians, etc. go through so much to get “their” judges appointed. There’s a reason scumbag McConnell did what he did. Scotus judges are just as opinionated and ideological as everyone else. You know that, I know that, they know that, and therefore it’s a complete myth that somehow they’re not prejudiced. And if somehow their training in law guarded against that, well again, it obviously doesn’t - or else it would be a foregone conclusion that judges should not be nominated (i.e. be reflections of the ideologies that favor them) but instead should be trained from the start to NOT be ideological, not have opinions, etc. Or at the very very least, nominations should be in twos - with each being from opposite sides of the ideological spectrum (roughly).