Many Americans are painfully aware only four justices critically, fairly evaluate, and adjudicate cases ever cognizant of the country's best interest, absent an external directive. However, there is reality within the next nine years. By 2020, barring unforeseen accidents or terminal illnesses, four justices, two each from both sides of the political spectrum will be in their 80s. There is a likelihood, one of the four will not be on the court at the end of a 2020 presidential term. And a higher probability due to age, at least two replacements be required before 2024 given Ginsburg will be in her early 90s, while Breyer, Kennedy and Scalia will be in their late 80s.
Boycotting or not supporting the presumptive democratic nominee may effectively vacate the party's competitiveness in securing the presidency. Consider affecting pole taxes, complimented by deceptive gerrymandering, thus efficiently contracting voter access for many 'left leaning' districts. Before persisting upon the path of voter absence, contemplate overriding decisions favoring corporations, relentless access to firearms as antithetical to public safety and embracing inequality at the expense of a contracting democracy. Below are snapshots, summaries taken from Supreme Court Review, the Justices pages with some edification and narratives added for clarity:
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) the Justice's expressed the Court effectively anointed Bush the 43rd President in the opening millennium election by ignoring the electorate's choice.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) As Justice Breyer stated, "the Second Amendment does protect a self-defense interest of individuals by precluding a legislature from finding that curtailing gun ownership will advance goals of great public importance, namely, saving lives, preventing injury, and reducing crime.
I truly believe American society has crossed the threshold of the individual's rights superseding the collective good.
The casualty of this ruling obliterated common sense and overturned 200 years of jurisprudence by nullifying several statutes, including an 18th Century Boston law imposing a fine upon "any Person" who carried a loaded firearm into common public areas.."
Citizens United v Federal Election Commission She nailed it by summarizing this decision turned a blind eye to the common sense judgment of the American people in deciding that corruption still occurs at the independent expenditure level and that campaigns would be less beholden to corporate interests if limits were placed on the ability of global business to spend unlimited sums to influence elections.
J.D.B. v. North Carolina The Justice stated Miranda Rights to Minors should consider a child's age is relevant to a Miranda custody analysis".the lower court held". . . that a child's age is never relevant to whether a suspect has been taken into custody--Justice Sotomayor argued in her opinion to ignore the very real differences between children and adults--would be to deny children the full scope of the procedural safeguards that Miranda guarantees to adults.
Kentucky v. King (2011), She believed this decision arms the police with a routinely way to dishonor the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement in drug cases. Her opinion highlighted that in lieu of presenting evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, and then break the door down, despite possessing ample time to obtain a warrant. The rational presented is exigency should exist when the police come upon the scene, not subsequent to their arrival.
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Given April 14, 2015 was Equal Pay Day, Mrs. Ginsburg opinion on the case's argument concentrated upon the disparity between genders as apparent and sizable. Most egregious examples demonstrated through future raises calculated as a percentage of current salaries, that an employee in Ledbetter's situation is likely to comprehend her plight and, therefore, to complain."
Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, discussed the hypocrisy capitalized on Citizens United and unfortunately paved the path for McCutcheon to expand the money excess destroying the veracity of the individual vote to culminate into the majority. She accused the majority (GOP occupants on the high court) of playing a "game" with democracy by thwarting legislators' efforts. This legislation intended to implement with the "greatest hope of eliminating corruption lying in creating an effective public financing program, by breaking candidates' dependence on large donors. A complete contradiction by the hypocritical conservative majority that viewed Citizens' United as political free speech except that source is private finance. The 'gang of five' claimed Arizona violated plaintiffs' First Amendment rights by disbursing funds to other speakers even though those SAME plaintiffs'could receive (but chose to spurn) the exact financial assistance,"