Blog 3

The author of the cartoon portrays the Supreme Court justices as having a skewed point of view and thinking that everything seems unconstitutional. This questions the integrity and credibility of the justices' actions and rulings.

For the most part, I agree with this viewpoint. Most of the time, the Supreme Court rules according to the Constitution and what is explicitly written. However, this is not to say that they don't also have "good" rulings where they exercise their power correctly. In the Brown v. Board of Education case it was determined that "separate but equal" was not constitutional and segregation became illegal. However, an earlier case of this in Plessy v. Ferguson, they ruled that segregation was constitutional under the "separate but equal" clause. In addition, many cases show Supreme Court demonstrations of incompetence. For example, in Dred Scott V. Sandford, the Court ruled that African Americans were to be treated as property. This was based on a grossly racist and convoluted reading of the Constitution. In Buck V. Bell, Justices decided that "feeble-minded" people can, and should be, sterilized. This completely ignored the basic human rights outlined in the Constitution and claimed that the 14th amendment didn't apply to these "feeble-minded." Many cases show the Supreme Court's skewed judgement and interpretation of the Constitution, which has caused them to have such an image.