Slow-burning injustices can also be products of over-opinionation. Plessy v. Ferguson was a 1896 United States Supreme Court case that re-enforced the claimed constitutionality of “separate but equal” racial segregation ("Racial Segregation in Post-Reconstruction America”). Like all Supreme Court cases, Plessy’s ruling was orchestrated by the whim of a mere nine people. The experiences, morals, and beliefs of each justice played a factor in the outcome of the case—which is a problematic truth. Legal scholar Larry Kramer concurs that undue trust in a justice’s subjective reasoning is illogical. “The idea that the justices have final say over the meaning of our Constitution,” he states, “ought to offend anyone who believes in democratic government” (Kramer). The Supreme Court is an institution that extols subjectivity as an end-all-be-all; It is founded on the weak, ever-shifting basis of fluid opinions and political environments. In Plessy v. Ferguson, the justices’ flimsy interpretations were wielded as an oppressive tool against black Americans, advancing Jim Crow laws and validating devout segregationists. A system requiring abstract, opinionated means is inexcusably corrupt and imperfect. Subjectivity reveals itself as the major inadequacy of mankind through its evident lack of accuracy and regrettably unstable