Why are Supreme Court decisions not unanimous? How can the most learned jurists in the country have different interpretations of the law?

11 Answers

Relevance
  • martin
    Lv 7
    1 month ago
    Favorite Answer

    The law is simple, but its application to real situations becomes very complicated. Nothing gets to the Supreme Court unless it's complicated in a way that pertains to the American public.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    The Supreme Court has no authority to "interpret" anything. I DEFY everyone to point to the word "interpret" in Article Three, Constitution of the United States, which sets up our federal court system. Some of the Court's decisions have been unanimous. Non-unanimous decisions result from having a combination of libs, conservatives and others on the Court. Also, some jurists respect the simple words of the Constitution while others despise the document and want to impose their own opinions on us.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Clive
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    Because cases that get there are very tricky or they wouldn't get there in the first place.  Whoever made the law may have thought it was clear, but later a case might arise that they hadn't thought of and there are genuinely good arguments for it to be interpreted either way.  Not even being highly learned can prevent that.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    Because the law is, in many cases, open to interpretation. That's why setting a precedent is so important and why lawyers can often argue their case based on a point of law.

    • ...Show all comments
    • In
      Lv 7
      1 month agoReport

      You must have been lucky enough not have had to deal with any lawyers.  They can argue anything endlessly.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 month ago

    Because every application of a law to a specific situation or circumstance has some unique aspects most of which are not specifically addressed in the law itself. That requires interpretition to determine how that situation specifically applies to the law. That requires following the intent and logic of the law which can be seen slightly differently by different legal scholars.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    If two people always agree on everything, you don't need one of them. 

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    Because laws are often written vaguely to allow for interpretation later.

  • GTB
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    This shows you that interpretation of the law is based on the viewpoint of the interpreters

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    Well it's like this!

    Some are paid by Trump and others are fair and independent as they are required to be under the US constitution!

    • David S
      Lv 7
      1 month agoReport

      Wow, you are a piece of work.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    Are you not a human being ?

    • Ozzie Klunk
      Lv 6
      1 month agoReport

      I am. maybe I have a habit of taking everything literally.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.