Questions to think on.

This week, I had read a Texas Supreme Court ruling in order to understand the Texas way of looking at personal injury cases. Being face to face with supreme court writings, regardless if the supreme court is a state one or the national one, is enlightening. When I read the supreme court ruling in City Mental Health and Mental Retardation v Bossely, I was shocked to see the same philosophy present in political writings. Now it seems apparent that a court would have ideological preferences, but one doesn't expect to see institutions believed to be apolitical to utilize thoughts and philosophies from prevailing political movements. This left me with several questions, especially on political thoughts and how they are applied in a legal framework. Does the lower courts utilize the same philosophies to a lesser or greater extent? How do court placing correlate with the political leanings of the state? There was also an approach to law that I hadn't seen, which was to look at the history of the law and to see the purpose of it at the time and see whether the current application follows the intent. While the intent of the law must be considered when discussing legal conflicts, it did seem to date the ruling and to chain the affects of the law to that time period by only looking at the specific intent and conditions of the past, and not by current standards. Reading this supreme court ruling was very beneficial to my legal understanding and has left me questions that I will need to answer as time goes on.