Alex Frost Values: Law & Society 9/23/2014 The Hollow Hope Introduction and Chapter 1 Gerald Rosenberg begins his book by posing the questions he will attempt to answer for the reader throughout the rest of the text: Under what conditions do courts produce political and social change? And how effective have the courts been in producing social change under such past decisions as Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education? He then works to define some of the principles and view points 'currently' held about the US Supreme court system.
Centuries under Chief Justice William Rehnquist and his successor, Chief Justice John Roberts. The book principally focuses on the little publicized happenings of the Supreme Court and its justices. The Nine
The judiciary has become a very branch of the United States’ political system. It has brought many monumental decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) that have changed the course of history. But the use of this judicial system was formed from the writings of Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers as he described his goals for a judicial system. In Hamilton’s essay, he discussed the importance of the judiciary to be a check on the President and Congress and how it should be upheld in the Constitution. Even though there are some weaknesses, Hamilton’s essay has shown how important the judicial system has become to the American political system.
Justice Thurgood Marshall Response Justice Thurgood Marshall said in his “Reflections on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution”, “I do not believe the meaning of the Constitution was forever ‘fixed’ at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, that we hold as fundamental as today” (Marshall). In this passage of his essay, Judge Marshall is critical of the government that is
Courting Polarization: The Supreme Court’s Role in Increasing the Divide between the Parties Of the three branches of government, the Judiciary, with the Supreme Court at its zenith, is the most popular amongst the American public. According to Real Clear Politics, Congress has an average disapproval rating of 78.8% and an average approval rating of 13.9% from March 2nd to April 7th, while President Obama’s approval and disapproval ratings for March 20th to April 11th were 42.8% and 52.5 % respectively. Though currently at 46%, the Court’s approval rating has recently been as high as 62% in August 2000 and June 2001 (Gallup).
The recent passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has left a controversially delicate 4-4 split within the Supreme Court betwixt the liberal and conservative minded remaining eight Justices. In the wake of this doubly devastating event, President Barack Obama has been forced into the predicament of deciding whether or not he should nominate a replacement for Scalia, a situation which has been worsened by the current status of an election year. Unsurprisingly, many Democrats have shown support for Obama’s choice to appoint a nominee himself, while many Republicans have voiced support for an alternative: allow Scalia’s vacancy to remain until the next president has been sworn into office and is able to make the nomination. Regardless of support or disdain for his decision, President Obama has chosen to nominate Merrick Garland as Justice Scalia’s replacement on the Supreme Court. The anticipated
1.The Supreme Court Justices make decisions according to the law, based on the constitution. They look a at a problem disinterestedly and dispassionately to only see the facts and not necessarily what the people want. Therefore the Justices are not guardians to the people, and they do not make social, political, economic, or philosophical decisions. Those are the duties of elected representatives, not the Supreme Court Justices. An example of this would be when the Supreme Court voted on the 15th amendment to allow African American males the right to vote.
How Roles and Power Evolved Over Time Roles and powers of the U.S. Supreme Court has evolved since the founding period. You may hear things like is that what the Founding Fathers might have wanted or that not what they wanted for us. However, there is no real ideal of what our Founding Fathers really wanted for America. Roles and powers has changed during time by methods of constitutional interpretation and the way courts promote both the common good and individual liberty. The Constitutional interpretation is when the judiciary uses methods and strategies to interpret the law.
In this essay I will be talking about what is constitutional and unconstitutional. One of the questions is going to be if something is right in the eyes of the people is it also right in front of the Supreme Court? Judicial Review is also a topic we are going to look at. So sit back and enjoy my topics and hopefully we will see eye to eye just like the Supreme Court and the people try to do. Judicial review is the power of the federal courts to hold any law or any official act based on the law to be null, void and unenforceable because it is in conflict with the Constitution.
Judicial selection is an intriguing topic as there are multiple ways that judges take their seat on the bench. The United States Constitution spells out how federal judges are selected and leaves it up to the individual states to establish their means for selecting judges. In federal courts, judges are appointed and it varies between appointment and election for state courts. The purpose of this paper is to examine the differences between appointments and elections (as well as the multiple types of elections) and to give an opinion as to which is the better alternative. Federal judges are appointed by the President of the United States and are confirmed on the advice and consent of the United States Senate.
Regarding to appellate courts, there are states in which the only appellate court is the state's supreme court. Not to mention, that there are some appeals that cannot be declined, such as, death sentences. However, "states can also permit their appellate courts to choose which appeals they will hear in certain categories of cases." (Adler, Mueller, & Laufer, 2012).
No matter which way you look at the Supreme Court, there will always be an odd number of justices. As of today there are a total of nine Supreme Court justices in office and every single one of them has a very important job that need to be done. Each justice is nominated by the President of the United States, and then voted on in congress. If the nominee gets past the first 15 senators that conduct the interview then they must go and get passed by the whole congress. Each of the Justices that sit on the court now have made it through that process, and everyone to follow will also have to go through that same process.
The justices of the Supreme Court of the United States have the choice of following one of the two judicial philosophies when ruling on federal cases. Some justices prefer the philosophy of judicial activism which allows for the justices to go beyond the printed words of the constitution when interpreting the amendments and their meanings to allow them to slightly use their personal views of right and wrong. This is used in many major cases involving civil rights to conform to the times of change. Strict constructionism is the second judicial philosophy used by Supreme Court justices. When this philosophy is followed, justices typically adhere to what the constitution clearly states in black and white.
Opponents of judicial review have long held that it is not an expressed power written in the Constitution. In Article III, Section I of the Constitution it says "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court..." Here, the Constitution is giving judicial power to a supreme court (and inferior courts as the section continues). In Article III, section II of the Constitution it says, "The judicial Power [given to the Supreme Court in section I] shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;" The Constitution does not specifically give judges the power to issue judgments or hold someone in contempt. The same way it does not specifically grant judges the power of judicial review.
When fully enacted, the 18-year term would allow each president to elect two Supreme Court Justices per term (Ringhand np). Vacancies would be predictable as they would happen every two years. If a sitting justice becomes ill or dies before their expected resignation, than he or she could temporarily be replaced by a lower court judge or one of the already retired Supreme Court judges. This system would increase the Supreme Courts democratic accountability. Studies have shown that throughout time, justices ideas “drift” away from what they had been at the time in which they were elected (Ringhand np).
