Mute, Moot or Totally Unconstitutional?

It's maddening when the US Supreme Court withdraws from a defining position in politically-charged cases, even when they have dealt with similar matters in the past, and have had no qualms about breaking procedure in other circumstances. And terror suspects held indefinitely at Guantanamo? How can they avoid it?

And, in this case, the loyalty of the Court to a doctrine of conservative jurism is frustrating because it appears that there is no other form of recourse for justice to be served.

In looking through the case lists on the US Supreme Court website, it is almost impossible to tell which of the cases on the docket have been addressed by this opinion.

Granted, much of the functioning of the US Supreme Court is procedural. Most of the cases addressed by the Court are moot, as far as the public is concerned, by the time an opinion is issued. And that is its purpose.

At what point does the Court become obligated to settle a dispute? Never. And that's the beauty of it.

Frustrating, yes. Unfair, perhaps.

The funny thing is that the Court is acting politically no matter what its' approach. They defer to a lower court, that's political. They decide in favor of one party or another, political! They choose not to accept a case at all? Yup, that's a political choice.

There's no avoiding it, but as the adversarial political system of the US will show, setting the odds of political opinion against each other is the way we come to conclusions. If the Court was elected, or appointed only by the party not in power, or by the outgoing President as a gift to the incoming replacement, the political nature would be both indisputable and productive.

As it stands, we masquerade with an impartial Court and a disinterested outcome.

How many times do I have to say it? Fuck the bullshit! Just tell us the truth!