"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

stuff snipped

I've had an ongoing discussion with a gentleman who is somewhat awed
by the Supreme court. I told him I thought they were basically clowns
and he started talking about how they were all SO learned in the law,
SO steeped in knowledge of historical precedent, So experienced, and
on and on So I asked him, if that's the case, how is it that we see
time after time these 5-4 split decisions? He can't seem to understand
the implications of 5-4 splits and how it indicates that all their
"knowledge, experience, historical perspective, blah blah blah"
doesn't mean squat when it comes to anything difficult - if it did
almost every SC decision would be nearly unanimous. They may wear
robes but there are no different than any other politician except they
only have to run for office once and only 100 people get to cast a
vote.

Very astute. Split decisions like the ones we've been seeing also mean
"likely to be overturned or reversed when the composition of the court
changes."

--
Bobby G.