United States Supreme Court


Some people, including some judges, believe it is valid to compare justices on the United States Supreme Court to baseball umpires in the game of baseball – or, for that matter, any referee or official who is responsible for enforcing the rules of a game. According to this view, judges, like umpires, merely “call them as they see them,” and don’t (and shouldn’t) insert in their personal policy preferences, partisan leanings, and ideological beliefs into the decision-making process. Drawing from the cases you read this semester, especially Roe v. Wade (1973) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003), do you believe “originalism” provides judges with a jurisprudential approach for interpreting and applying the U.S. Constitution that allows them to act like neutral and unbiased umpires when deciding constitutional cases? Explain.

Please submit your quiz answer separately through the assignment portal on Blackboard by following the submission instructions below. Your answer should be close to, but no more than, 400 words, and it should be submitted no later than11.59 PM.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *