supreme court deliberations?

Question

do u think that it is proper that the supreme court's deliberations are secret and that no minutes are kept.

Answer 1

They aren't.

I think you are confused between minutes and inner-debate.

Minutes represent the time the justices are listening to the case... that is recorded.

Also, debate is recorded.

What is not recorded is the discussion between the justices in closed-chambers after the attorneys have been released then boom-yawl... you have the opinion released.

Now if you are talking about that behind-closed-doors debate between justices, I agree. I'd like to know what they have to say to each other...

Answer 2

I'm not an American but it seems to me that the 'deliberations' are just that. When the judges come foreward with an an outright decision, the assenting majority opinion is expressed and the minority dissenting opinion is expressed and both give their reasons individually why their opinions are as such. If the 'Court' decides in it's judgement that they will not hear a case, they have determined that a 'lower' court decision is sufficient and sound in law. I might add that in such cases as the directly 'indirect' appointment of Geo. W. Bush as President of The United States involved the decision of the 'Court' to stop the endless recount in Florida. However, actual offhand yet deliberate remarks by the 'Court' judges cannot be noted. They are appointed to come to 'decisions' as a group(that's why there's an odd number sitting on the 'Court'). Without(to return to your question) this 'deliberation' in private, they would be of no use. In the case of Bush, Gore could have appealed. He didn't for the sake of the integrity of the office of The President of The United States and certainly as no favor to W. In my opinion, the judges had no choice either. W. got in the 'side door' and I figure he 'stole' 2004 due to irregularities in Ohio. That being said, a sitting President waging a 'war' should never come that close to defeat. He won simply because of Iraq as wartime president's are given much leeway by the elecorate historically. It's obvious now that the choice of '43' was a gawdawful mistake. Hopefully when you have 2 Presidents in the White House(Hillary & Bill), they'll dig you out of the bloody mess you're in. Bill's a giant and standing behind Hillary they would be formidable. It's inevitable. Any Republican nominee is automatic toast thanks to '43'. Obama is Obama. Give the public Bill Clinton in a dress(Hillary) or any other way and they'll vote for him(her) twice if they can. 'Nuff said.

Answer 3

Yes.

The process of figuring out what the law should be isn't something that really makes a difference to anyone else. It's not like the Justices are up for re-election. Ever.

By keeping the discussions private, they can say whatever they want during the debate, to explore all possible interpretations of the law. The only binding parts are the published opinion anyway.

If the discussions were made public, I'd bet that huge numbers of people would find something that was said to take offense. And the media discussions would be all about what the Justices were thinking, rather than what they said in their opinions. That hinders the judicial process.

Answer 4

The Supreme Court deliberations must be made public so that secret deals will be prevented between the justices.

Answer 5

I don't think it is that big a deal because it is unlikely that there are "meetings" to discuss the outcome of case. To the extent that one wants to know how the jurist were thinking about the case before them, you have the opinion, concurrence, and dissent to tell you. The method used to reach those legal conclusions should be laid out in the analytical structure of the text before you. Anything outside of that is irrelevant to the legal conclusion and serves as nothing more than sensationalizing of a mundane process.

Answer 6

Yes. What is improper is that they write laws instead of just interpreting them.