# Is it Time to Require Unanimous Opinions to Overturn Laws?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-require-unanimous-opinions-to-overturn-laws/617937>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [April 5, 2012, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-require-unanimous-opinions-to-overturn-laws/617937 "2012-04-05T19:37:03Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\
**Post date:** [April 11, 2012, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-require-unanimous-opinions-to-overturn-laws/617937/41 "2012-04-11T06:04:30Z")

</div>

How about 2-thirds of a majority in the house so that these laws are less likely to make it to the SCOTUS in the first place?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Smitty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Smitty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smitty)\
**Post date:** [April 13, 2012, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-require-unanimous-opinions-to-overturn-laws/617937/42 "2012-04-13T21:17:27Z")

</div>

> [@PrettyVacant](#):
>
> You make a decision based entirely on the merits and not with reference to some collective dogma or ideology i.e. ‘this is the best person for the job’ vs. ‘this is the person who will best reflect the agenda of my political tribe’.
> 
> That’s a huge difference. It can’t be that difficult to grasp given it’s how a large chunk of the world tends to appoint senior judges.

You seem to be missing the point that the determination of “the job” as you describe it is the essence of politics. Who decides what “the job” is? Is it to provide universal health care, or is it to minimize government intrusion? Is it maximize fairness or freedom? What you are saying is very easy in the abstract. The reality is something different.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Randvek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@Randvek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randvek)\
**Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-require-unanimous-opinions-to-overturn-laws/617937/43 "2012-04-14T00:52:08Z")

</div>

The Supreme Court has always been polarized. The difference now is that the court is content to have 5-4 decisions on divisive issues on a regular basis. Before Rhenquist, that wasn’t true. It’s unfortunate that Roberts has continued that.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\
**Post date:** [April 14, 2012, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-require-unanimous-opinions-to-overturn-laws/617937/44 "2012-04-14T02:40:39Z")

</div>

> [@Shakes](#):
>
> How about 2-thirds of a majority in the house so that these laws are less likely to make it to the SCOTUS in the first place?

Are people seeing some connection between voting in legislatures and voting in judicial panels that I’m not aware of?

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-time-to-require-unanimous-opinions-to-overturn-laws/617937.md?page=2)