|
Cases & Controversies: Some Decisions Are All the Rage-Literally
Judges aren't too political. They're not political enough. They decide cases according to their personal agendas. They ignore moral values when applying traditional, often outdated legal concepts. They even apply the law of other countries, instead of U.S. law. You name it--the judiciary is guilty of it, according to one interest group or the other. And during the last decade, criticism of judges and their decisions has been steadily increasing. Meanwhile, organized efforts are on the rise to overturn controversial decisions, to require judicial candidates to espouse the proper viewpoints and even to exert political influence on the rulings of sitting judges. Some organizations have taken up the banner of judicial independence, seeking to strengthen the expectation that this country's judges will not be swayed by political pressure. Certain cases, in particular, hit a hot button and make people angry. Among those: Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion; the Terri Schiavo right-to-die case that was resolved earlier this year in Florida; and a Supreme Court opinion this spring allowing municipalities to condemn private property for development as a public use. In response, it is not unusual anymore to see demonstrations, special laws enacted to address particular court rulings and even death threats. … "The supreme court decides cases that are hard cases that reasonable people can disagree with," says Nancy Marder, a civil procedure professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law. So, regardless of how such cases are decided, someone is going to be angry about those that address important issues, Marder says. "These are cases, if they went the other way, they would get other people mad," Marder adds.
For a copy of the complete article, contact CJRG. |