This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2017, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

OK, the Republican party got its latest Supreme Court nominee installed for life on the court. But, let's face it, if the Supreme Court was really a "legal" institution and not a political or policymaking body, as court experts, commentators and its assorted media sycophants would have we, the great unwashed, ignorant masses, believe, there wouldn't be such a struggle between the political right and the barely-left-of-center over court appointments. Sadly, this isn't the case.

In my view, the Supreme Court of the United States is just another hack, partisan decision-making body within our nation's political elite, except the elite doesn't want us to think of it in that way. So, we have had centuries of propaganda to the effect that the court is a legal, not a political, institution and the powers that be think we swallow and don't really get that. After all, it's better to have "legal" scholars in black robes determine the final outcomes of our lives. It's so very "proper," you see.

Now let's be clear about this. The framers of our Constitution, who some Americans unfortunately see as "divinely inspired," were unable to decide which branch of government would have the final say as to what is or is not constitutional, and that issue wasn't resolved until 1803. Since then, finality has constantly been up in the air as the judiciary has played "cat and mouse" with the other two branches of government, the legislative and the executive, as they make the final authoritative decisions on issues of the day.

And here's how the court has made those decisions over the past several centuries:

• The meaning of the Constitution's words: An interpretive method justices use, close to former Justice Scalia's originalism/original intent approach, asking the question, what did the words of the Framers mean?

• The intention of the Framers approach: By reading the diaries, etc., of the Framers, can we figure out what they meant, also close to the original intent approach.

• The adaptive mode: Asking the question, what new information (scientific or otherwise) is available to help in making a decision. This was used, for example, to rule against segregation in the South, which social science research at the time showed had very negative psychological impacts on African-Americans, one of the 10 percent or so of the court's decisions in favor of the U.S, underclass.

• The legal syllogism: Sticking to a very formal way of making decisions, reasoning from the general to the specific, which is a method of moving from a general (major) premise, such as all rational people will obey this law, to a minor premise, some people aren't obeying this law, to a conclusion, people who don't obey this law aren't rational or reasonable.

As the final political decision making body, the Supreme Court has usually, but not always, performed its intended role as defender of the wealthy, propertied classes in U.S. society, meaning companies, corporations, the rich, socio-economic conservatives, and so on. The question we must ask today is, will the Supreme Court ever get over its current political allegiances to existing corporate, religious, economic, social and political elites and render decisions that provide "aid and comfort" to the poor, the least powerful members of society, the needy and the rest of us rather than elites?

It has rarely done this, hiding its prejudices behind the decision-making methods outlined above, and my guess is, no, it won't work for most of us now, especially with the current political group in control of things.

"So sad!"

Chuck Tripp, West Valley City, now retired, was a professor of political science at Westminster College, Salt Lake City.