U.S. Supreme Court Decisions

         A thoughtful friend offered an interesting take on the nuanced term “precedence.” Like most media trendy verbiage, this one presumes to offer esoteric references that mere mortals don’t know about or fail to grasp.

          What I think the reporters are trying to get at, but miss the point on, is a concept called “stare decisis.” It is Latin term referring to an older or preceding decision, or to “stand by things that have already been decided.” The Supreme Court, for the last two hundred years, weigh heavily on this concept in their decision making. The rationale behind the concept is that rulings by former courts have a Constitutional substance that should not be altered. The disputes come from whether or not people favor a strict or literal interpretation of our founders wishes or those who see the document as a dynamic construct that needs to be applied to modern circumstances. 

         Stare Decisis sounds like proper legalese for saying “why change things that we have been doing for generations?” And while there is some merit to the notion, I reflect back upon landmark decisions (stare decisis) that, while reflective of the national temperament of their times, were wholly inconsistent with what we generally accept today as being consistent with a dynamic interpretation of the constitution. One that include later amendments to the document, like allowing women to vote, all citizens to be worthy of due process and equal protection of our laws to all citizens without regard to color, creed, religious of other affiliations.

      As noble as these basic freedoms now sound to us, our founding fathers would have been appalled. Women voting? “Sheer nonsense” most would have argued. Ignorant working people being allowed to vote for or against our rule of Law? Heresy!

       The landmark rulings of Plessy v. Furgeson are a case in point. In 1856 the court ruled that “separate but equal education was wholly consistent with the intentions of the framers. It wasn’t until 1954 in the landmark ruling of Brown V the Board of Education of Topeka Kansas, that the court decided that “separate but equal” was unconstitutional. All children, in this opinion, deserved the benefits of the same educational system, as a matter of law. Similarly, in the 1970’s the court ruled that all children in American schools deserved the benefits of equal physical education. The much-lauded “Title Nine” legislation, that followed, specified that an equal amount of money be spent of sports for boys and girls. It changed the face of the nation.

        There are many other examples that show that the Supreme Court is more of a barometer of the “political commentary du jour” rather than a process that issues dictums, based on stare decisis, handed down from a judicial Mount Olympus. This idea is important in understanding the nature of the United States Supreme Court. Its main function is to interpret the documents of our founding fathers for applicability in governing a diverse population. The notion of philosophical elasticity is at the same time its greatest strength and its greatest weakness.

       In thinking of the concept of precedence, I think we have to think back even further, to the philosophical underpinnings of western thought, as espoused by John Locke and other supporters of the curious notions of democracy. This relatively modern concept find its roots in the rather daring actions of a small groups on British nobility that took King John to task at Runnymede in 1215. Even further back and from the lips of my favorite revolutionary, we have the remarkable thoughts of one Jesus of Nazareth. Here, we find the more endearing pronouncements of the Sermon on the Mount. These humble proscriptions laid the foundation for a more equitable manner of treating the poor and the dispossessed. The more well healed in any era can usually look out for themselves.

       What does all of this mean? It means that while we should show the proper respect for older Supreme Court decisions (precedence) and pay heed to the words of the founding father’s intentions, we should not take either as holy writ. These gentlemen, (no women ‘s opinions ever being solicited,) stood for many amazing concepts. Their stance could well have cost them their lives. But, as noble as they were, sometimes these guys just got it wrong. Slavery was an evil from our founding. Women and working people deserve the vote. 

       As the conservative bias of the court emerges, with the recent decision of moderate Justice Kennedy to retire, we do in fact have to reference stare decisis. But, we also have to give heed to the principles espoused at Sermon on the Mount. If we are to be judged as a good and decent people, we have to remember not only who we are, but how we got to this lofty place in the world order. The United States of America is and can be a shining example of what democracy means to its people. Compassion has long been an integral part of our philosophical make up. These notions once made us the shining society of decency and fairness that the entire world looked to for guidance. Let’s see if we can keep it that way long into the future, so that your children and grandchildren will look back with pride on all of our actions. And always remenber the admonition of slaves whispering in the ears of conquering Roman emperors. “Sic transit Gloria.” (Fame is fleeting)

                                                        -30-

                                                 (910 words)

                                            Joseph Xavier Martin