How do justices apply the wording of the U.S. Constitution to decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court?
Siena’s annual Constitution Day lecture explored this question in “6 to 3: The Constitutional Fruits of the Court’s Conservative Super-Majority.” It was delivered September 13 by Vincent M. Bonventre, Ph.D., professor at Albany Law School and a law adjunct at Siena.
Leonard Cutler, Ph.D., professor of political science and pre-law advisor, introduced the lecture by noting that SCOTUS wrapped up its most recent session in June, continuing to flex its legal muscle by reinforcing on major decisions handed down the previous year.
“I would suggest that one of the most critical, consequential legacies of the Trump presidency will be his imprint on the United States Supreme Court,” said Cutler.
Major decisions on affirmative action, LGBTQ rights, student debt and more were decided 6-3, a dramatically conservative direction, according to legal scholars.
Bonventre explained that “the Constitution is at any given time is what the U.S. Supreme Court says it is.”
“You can’t just apply the words of the Constitution. They’re either too broad, or too ambiguous…or where the words are pretty clear, they can’t be applied strictly. That’s why we have these cases at the Supreme Court that are so deeply divided.”
He said there exists no clear direction in the founding document on how to decide a case.
“That’s why these decisions are close. Much of it, if not most of it, depends on the particular values and perspectives of the justices themselves.”
Bonventre said that in using the terms “conservative” or “liberal,” he does not refer to whether the justices adhere to the strict letter of the law, but if they vote like conservative Republican politicians or liberal Democratic politicians would vote.
“In the current court, they’re not voting like activists or constructionists,” he said.
He listed the current justices, their ages, what president appointed them, and their lengths of service, then analyzed a number of recent SCOTUS decisions related to the death penalty, fair trial, Miranda violation, excessive force, abortion and more through the lens of the super-majority’s rulings.
Emma Ries ’24 said she always look forward to Constitution Day, especially this year’s presentation.
“It helped me have a better understanding of how the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has affected the outcome of many controversial issues over the years,” said Ries. “It also provided me with insight into how different the newer justices have changed in their ideologies from their previous justices. From my own understanding, the role of the Supreme Court has changed from what it has previously been set out to do, and I am not sure this will change anytime soon.”
Michael Lennon ’24 noted that the topics were relevant to what he is learning in his Siena classes.
“Dr. Bonventre's discussion was engaging as well as very informative, especially the exploration of how the 6-3 conservative court has already voted on many key cases already that affect policy today.”
Maryam Jaffri '25 added, "Constitution Day was incredibly informative for me because it provided a comprehensive analysis of the judicial landscape and helped me understand the present jarring divide. I appreciated that Dr. Bonventre presented all the facts objectively, allowing us, the audience, to form our own conclusions based on the evidence presented!