The recent decision by the Supreme Court in Allen v. Milligan has sparked a fascinating debate about the role of speed and attention in judicial processes. This case, which has significant implications for Alabama's political landscape, has raised questions about the court's reading and decision-making processes.
One of the key aspects that stands out to me is the timing of the court's order. The fact that a decision of such magnitude was made within 38 minutes of the deadline for responses is intriguing. It raises the question: Are the justices truly considering the depth and breadth of the arguments presented, or are they rushing through these complex cases?
The average reading speed for adults, as mentioned in a 2019 study, is around 238-260 words per minute for non-fiction and fiction respectively. Legal documents, however, can be dense and intricate, often requiring a slower pace for comprehension. So, when we consider the volume of material the justices had to read and the time they allocated for it, it does leave one wondering about the level of scrutiny applied.
Furthermore, the disparity between the majority's order, which was a mere paragraph, and the dissent's five-page response, is notable. While the majority may be criticized for their haste, the minority justices, in my opinion, should also be held accountable for their apparent lack of urgency in presenting a thorough dissent.
This case brings to mind the infamous Jim Crow literacy tests, where the outcome was often predetermined, regardless of the answers given. The comparison to these tests is particularly striking, as it suggests a potential erosion of the court's impartiality and a shift towards a more political decision-making process.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in his recent comments, denies that the court is engaged in political decision-making. He asserts that the court is merely interpreting the law. However, the events in Allen v. Milligan seem to contradict this statement. The court's actions suggest a pre-determined outcome, much like the literacy tests of the past.
In conclusion, the speed at which the Supreme Court made its decision in Allen v. Milligan is a cause for concern. It raises questions about the court's commitment to thorough consideration of complex legal issues. The comparison to Jim Crow-era literacy tests is a stark reminder of the potential consequences of rushed decisions. As we move forward, it is essential to reflect on the implications of such practices and ensure that the court maintains its integrity and impartiality.
