Obergefell V. Hodges (2005)

Question 1 Since the Supreme Court was established in 1789 it has directly or indirectly been a policymaker. The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution, but inevitably by doing so, they have become policy makers that change the way citizens and the government interact; from Miranda rights to same-sex marriage the Supreme Court has played a major part in policy making. Recent cases that show the Supreme Court changes the way that the government and its citizens interact with each other are Gonzales v. Raich (2005), Salinas v. Texas (2013), and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). First, in Gonzales v. Raich (2005) the Supreme Court criminalized the production and use of cannabis even where states approved it for medicinal purposes.

Hodges (2015) the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, applying to same-sex couples the same as opposite-sex couples. This case was brought forward by numerous groups of same-sex couples who were suing their relevant state agencies to challenge the constitutionality of those states’ same-sex marriage laws. The Supreme Court found that there is no difference between same-sex marriages and opposite-sex marriages, therefore, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the right to marry violates the Due Process Clause. This is policy making because the Supreme Court forced states to change their laws by deciding that it was against the constitution to not only ban the recognition of same-sex marriages that occurred in states that allowed it, but also making same-sex marriage legal in all states. Government officials even those who do not believe in the law change must abide by it, by allowing same-sex couples their now legal right to be married and receive the benefits that opposite-sex married couples receive; changing the way that citizens and the government interact in societal ways but also financial

If one of the Democrats Clinton or Sanders is elected they have vowed to nominate a Justice(s) that will overrule Citizens United v. FEC (2013). This will not only bring polarization in the future, but is already doing so, since the more something is discussed the more opinionated citizens become; believing we should either follow exactly what was interpreted from the Constitution or those who allow their experiences with corporations to influence their point of view. If a Republican is elected the ideological majority will remain the same in the court, but even with that being true, the election will inevitably affect future decisions. For example, if Trump becomes president he will likely nominate a Justice(s) who favor corporations in upcoming court cases. There will also likely be many more same-sex marriage and abortion cases in the future and whoever becomes President will appoint a Justice(s) who agrees with them on these major issues, so it is likely that will affect future decisions on those types of cases as well leading to some cases being overturned. No matter who wins the upcoming election the polarization of these two points of views will get worse. This is not only because of the President but also the amount of media coverage controversial issues get and information is so accessible. Justice Holmes may or may not have been right but the two opposing views