The Supreme Court has always had the first say in cases that they undertook, but several legal scholars have dove deeper in the what truly happens behind the scenes. It was found that plenty of "non-judicial actors," which could be anyone from activists to legislators, were actually big influences on interpreting the constitutional law and creating limits on the ones that we abide by everyday.
When we think of constitutional law you think it was decided by a bunch of old white men sitting on the Supreme Court, but there was impact from those who are everyday people, such as you and I. This article illustrates that we do not spend enough time focusing on how much these "social actors" who work with the judiciary system to shape the law into what it has become today. I leave you with this hard sought after question which is whether we should change the judicial system from a strict interpretation of the constitution to a more representative interpretation.
Michael Gerdhart created the theory of non-judicial precedents which are essentially beliefs from the constitution that were set in the previous judicial system to control certain affairs. His proof was that these "non-judicial actors" would go around sparking conversations about what they felt strongly about. They would talk to officials with high standings and preach about how the public feels about certain issues happening in and around the court system.
In the end, the Supreme Court system is not just made up of the opinions of those on the court, but can also be highly influenced by those who have enough of a voice to share it with others.
No comments:
Post a Comment