The Supreme Court's recent decision in Allen v. Milligan, where three sets of plaintiffs had until 5 p.m. to respond to Alabama's motion, has sparked a debate about the court's efficiency and its interpretation of the law. Kyle Whitmire, in his opinion column, highlights the absurdity of the situation, where the court issued its order just 38 minutes after the deadline, despite the 107-page response. This raises questions about the court's ability to thoroughly review and deliberate on complex legal matters.
Whitmire draws a parallel between this scenario and the Jim Crow literacy tests, where registrars would judge a person's literacy based on a single question, often with the right to vote at stake. He argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Allen v. Milligan mirrors this approach, where the outcome was predetermined, and the court's role was more akin to a speed-reading contest than a fair legal process.
The author questions the court's ability to truly understand and interpret the law, given the rapid pace at which they make decisions. He suggests that the court's efficiency might be more about speed-reading skills than a deep understanding of the law. This raises concerns about the court's impartiality and its role in ensuring justice.
Furthermore, Whitmire criticizes the court's interpretation of its role, as stated by Chief Justice John Roberts. Roberts claims that the court is not making policy but is simply interpreting the law. However, Whitmire argues that the court's decisions have real-world implications and can shape public policy. He believes that the public's perception of the court as 'political actors' is justified, given the rapid and sometimes rushed nature of their decisions.
In conclusion, Whitmire's column highlights the potential dangers of a court that prioritizes speed over thoroughness. He warns that this approach could lead to a return to the discriminatory practices of the past, where literacy tests were used to disenfranchise voters. The author calls for a more thoughtful and deliberate approach to decision-making, emphasizing the importance of justice and fairness in the legal system.
