About that is that what is portrayed sometimes as being seeticized, what you really is the operation of different judicial philosophies at work. These are legitimate philosophies. They tend to drive them in a principled way towards answers to the same question. If you are able to perceive that a lot of times that is not the right way to aink about it erie it this is wellthoughtout philosophy about the law and the constitution, but they just dont have the same philosophy. This generates different results. You could say the same thing about the great battles in the Supreme Court over the new deal. There were philosophies about how you did interpret the constitution in certain areas. This generates some sharp differences. Times, the court was not just political in this sort of cents, how they align with political ideology, but they were actual politicians. Had one justice run for president and another former president , chief justice taft, appointed to the court. The first the first chief
Vietnam
Republic-of
Alabama
United-states
Carver-hall
Iowa
Erie
Washington
China
Delaware
Syria
Russia