Homestead mailing list

["Marie McHarry" <mmcharry AT dtnspeed.net>]

<<But when [the justices] vote to 
uphold the plain language of the constitution although it might go against 
their personal philosophy  and idealism, then they are a justice.>>

That's part of it, but it's not that simple. Previous Supremes have spoken,
and the current ones can't just poke a stick in the eye of the past. They
have to attend to precedent and follow it, unless it's obviously totally
opposed to the Constitution. We have more than 200 years of accepted
precedent; to suddenly dislodge anything ought to take the concurrence of
the whole court (as occurred in the major anti-segregation decisions, such
as Brown v. Board of Education).

Marie