The Supreme Court based the majority of their decisions on established precedent, but when they venture into new territory, how often are they correct? According to one columnist, not very often.
Adam Liptak’s legal blog takes a look at the Court’s recent decision to prevent the California gay-marriage trial from being broadcast during the trial. The Court postulated that broadcasting the trial could lead to potentially more harassment for witnesses. As Liptak points out, trial are held in public, and most the witnesses are experts who have already widely disseminated their views. Bad prediction?
The post examines a number of recent decisions and asks a number of legal analysts whether the court was right or wrong. Unfortunately, the answer is more "it depends" then yes or no.
Justices Better at Precedent Than Prescience | New York Times