Comparison Between Earl Warren And William Winquist

Comparison Between Chief Justices Earl Warren and William Rehnquist

Jacob Smith

Park University, CJ221 Criminal Procedure When looking at Chief Justice Earl Warren and Chief Justice William Rehnquist, you begin to notice a difference in their idealistic approaches to the interpretation of the law. Earl Warren was very liberal in his judgments, standing on principle that individual rights needed to be protected. He saw that the need for the individual, specifically individuals of different race and ethnic origins deserved the same constitutional rights as everyone else. Chief Justice William Rehnquist on the other hand, was much more conservative and believed that some individual rights must be sacrificed in order to maintain order within

He wants to ensure that every individual that is convicted of a crime gets the same treatment provided by the law as possible. As a result, his judgments has helped to ensure that the procedures that are based behind due process is practiced.

When looking now at William Rehnquist you can notice that his time as chief justice wasn’t too long ago. He served as the Chief Justice from 1986 to 2005. While he was on the bench he heard several cases where he voted on procedural issues that are focused around the law instead of around the individual rights of the person. (Chemerinsky, 2006).

The first case to be looked at is the case of Griffith v. Kentucky. This case centered on the retrospective application of judge-made rules. More specifically whether the exclusion of black jurors violated to the defendant’s right to an impartial jury. The question was if retroactive Supreme Court decisions be implicated to selective cases. After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court held that once a new rule has been ruled upon in a case, “the integrity of judicial review requires that we apply that rule to all similar cases pending on direct review.” (Griffith v. Kentucky, n.d.). The Court ruled that applying rules to cases selectively, and not by similarity is

Ortega. The Executive Director Dr. Dennis O’Connor was suspicious of his employee Dr. Ortega and his management of a residency program. There was an investigation initiated at his office and seized several items. These items were used in proceedings that impeached the credibility of witnesses who had testified on behalf of Ortega. The appeal was based upon the thought that the search of Dr. Ortega’s office was a violation of the Fourth Amendment of his expectation of privacy. After being reviewed, the Court ruled that the search was not in violation of the Fourth Amendment. They said that “the realities of the workplace” did not give him the same privacy of being in his own home. It states that an individual’s workspace can be searched because it’s the safety of the workplace and the space is property of the business, not the employee. (O'Connor v. Ortega, n.d.).

After looking at all the cases, Chief Justice Rehnquist one can theorize that he looks at the procedure behind the law and does what is best for the all parties involved. As he looks at cases, he will rule in favor of the law. If the law was violated, either by individuals or by the law enforcement agencies, he ruled in favor of law procedure. He ensures that law and rights are followed by everyone. Everyone from the individuals all the way up to the judges that hear the cases. His philosophy is the law, as long as it is for the best of all parties, then that is how he