When talking about Brown in class today, it struck me how much we talked about the legitimacy of the Court. In writing the opinion, the Justices knew it had to be unanimous, or the integrity of the Court would diminish in the eyes of the public. I actually respect this goal of legitimacy and ensuring that the legal opinions are strong with bipartisan support and argued in a clear moral voice. Now, it seems like the Justices pick and choose the law based on their own political leanings, sometimes even ignoring the literal words of the Constitution. I also think the moral voice has vanished in opinions. The Justices now openly attack each other in their opinions that become binding law. Personally, I question the legitimacy of the Court as it stands.
It's just an interesting shift that in Brown, in the 1950s, the Court was so worried about this. For most of my childhood and until the 2020s, I really did not question the Court's decisions, just assuming that the foundation was good law. Now, I sift through every opinion trying to figure out how they could possibly come to their conclusion.
I think you’re right that it makes people second-guess the Court and wonder if every decision is just politics in disguise. At the same time, you could also see open disagreement as a kind of strength because it shows the justices are wrestling honestly with hard constitutional questions instead of forcing fake consensus.
The tricky part is that the tone today often feels more partisan than principled, so whatever benefit comes from transparency can get lost in the noise. Back in Brown, unanimity gave the Court moral weight; now, the bickering risks eroding that same legitimacy.
When talking about Brown in class today, it struck me how much we talked about the legitimacy of the Court. In writing the opinion, the Justices knew it had to be unanimous, or the integrity of the Court would diminish in the eyes of the public. I actually respect this goal of legitimacy and ensuring that the legal opinions are strong with bipartisan support and argued in a clear moral voice. Now, it seems like the Justices pick and choose the law based on their own political leanings, sometimes even ignoring the literal words of the Constitution. I also think the moral voice has vanished in opinions. The Justices now openly attack each other in their opinions that become binding law. Personally, I question the legitimacy of the Court as it stands.
It's just an interesting shift that in Brown, in the 1950s, the Court was so worried about this. For most of my childhood and until the 2020s, I really did not question the Court's decisions, just assuming that the foundation was good law. Now, I sift through every opinion trying to figure out how they could possibly come to their conclusion.
I think you’re right that it makes people second-guess the Court and wonder if every decision is just politics in disguise. At the same time, you could also see open disagreement as a kind of strength because it shows the justices are wrestling honestly with hard constitutional questions instead of forcing fake consensus.
The tricky part is that the tone today often feels more partisan than principled, so whatever benefit comes from transparency can get lost in the noise. Back in Brown, unanimity gave the Court moral weight; now, the bickering risks eroding that same legitimacy.