Longing for a More Liberal Supreme Court? That Was An ‘Aberration,’ Says Prof. Higginbotham – But Social Progress Happens Anyway

Dean Joseph Curtis Professor of Law Michael Higginbotham.

F. Michael Higginbotham, the Dean Joseph Curtis Professor of Law in the University of Baltimore School of Law, tells Marc Steiner of the Real News Network that the U.S. Supreme Court of the post-Great Depression—the Court that advanced civil rights in cases like Brown v. Board of Education—was an aberration. Still, social progress is made, usually when Justices who might generally be labeled conservative land on a decision that takes the country in a different direction.

“Most of the time, the Court has been a conservative Court. The Court has stood for preventing progress, particularly on areas of civil rights,” Prof. Higginbotham says.

But there are exceptions, such as the Brown v. Board of Education case or the more recent Obergefell v. Hodges.

The phenomenon of “swing Justices” helps the nation achieve a balance of power that might not occur if the judicial branch consistently went along with the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, Higginbotham says.

“Oftentimes it happens that Justices don’t necessarily follow verbatim the values of the president that’s appointing them,” he says.

Watch the interview on The Marc Steiner Show.

Learn more about Prof. Higginbotham.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s