When people think of how government works, unless they’ve taken a government class, they usually think of Congress making laws and the President doing pretty much everything else. No one pays much attention to the Supreme Court unless there is a landmark case or something else to grab the news — like the recent death of Justice Antonin Scalia. But the Supreme Court does much more than you’d think regarding keeping the political machine running like a well-oiled … machine. Through not only interpretation of the law, but also judicial activism, the Supreme Court shows it can have as much influence over the laws of the land as either of the other branches of the federal government. In this paper, I will analyze the decision-making methods of the Court using the cases of Gideon v. Wainwright and Betts v. Brady.
In today’s society I still believe that precedent plays a huge role for courts decisions as it sets the framework and guidelines for the deliberating process of certain cases and decisions. Yet unlike in the past in which precedent reigned superior amongst all other factors in court decisions it no longer settles cases by itself. For this reason I agree more with the finding and conclusion of Segal and Spaeth who both acknowledge the idea that precedent still has a role in the court but it does not carry the same legitimacy in court ruling as it once did in the past. In contemporary society it has become somewhat clear that stare decisis is starting to decline in popularity in landmark rulings suck as the same sex marriage ruling. What was once considered state judgments and excluded from federal intrusion has now become federally mandate law upheld by new decisions which contradict ruling of the past which only legally recognized marriage between opposite gender couples.
The most contentious debate, however, concerns the legal principle of stare decisis. A Latin phrase, stare decisis means that judges should respect legal precedents by letting them stand instead of overturning them. It is important to note, however, that stare decisis is not found in the Constitution or the Bill or Rights; it is not the law of the land, but a “rule of thumb.” As Constitutional lawyer Robert McFarland points out, a number of Democratic congressmen have taken a sudden interest in this legal principle.
In order to uphold the constitution, the Supreme Court must always aim to balance power among the branches of government and not overstep boundaries in exercising its own power. For this reason, the debate over handling political questions in the courtroom
To begin with, in the judicial system, there is an ongoing dispute over what compromises the proper amount of judicial power. This lack of agreement concerning policymaking power of the Courts is bestowed within the discussion between judicial activism and judicial restraint. In general, these two philosophies represent the conflicting approaches taken by judges in their task of interpretation. Consequently, the Court’s decision could be framed in terms of activism or restraint by either changing or upholding public policy.
Chief Justice Warren declared that the burden is upon the State to demonstrate that ‘‘procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination’’ are followed. ‘‘Interrogation while being unable to communicate with the rest of the world is at odds with one of our Nation’s most cherished principles – that the individual may not be compelled to incriminate himself.’’ Ernesto Miranda was not apprised of his right to consult an attorney which conflicts the ‘‘fundamental fairness’’ standards the Court has established. Judicial fairness influenced the judge’s decision. The prestige built up by the American justice system on how fairness and equality play a large part on how court hearings are done.
The model jurist renders decisions without regard to personal values, beliefs or experiences. For many, the most important test of judicial nominees from Robert Bork to John Arnick is whether, given prior statements and acts, the nominee can be ' 'impartial. ' ' The assumption is that only impartial judges can be fair.
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth. "The influence of stare decisis on the votes of United States Supreme Court justices. " American Journal of Political Science (1996): 971-1003. Warren, Chief Justice Earl. " Brown v. board of education."
When one holds a prestigious position on the United States Supreme Court, they possess the opportunity to alternate the future of the country. However, that impulse should not be entertained in the majority of instances, as with the Dred Scott Case of 1857. Although that conflict should have dissolved after the subject dissolved, Chief Justice Roger Taney allegedly overextended his reach to determine the legality of another issue that had troubled the United States. In addition, the decision decided on the case itself negates the framework of the U.S. Constitution by infringing on an individual’s rights, regardless of who they might be. At the time of the Dred Scott Decision, the United States had become deadlocked over the controversy
Ultimately, the judicial branch has to go back to what the founding fathers intended for the court’s purpose and to use the power accordingly. To maintain the strength of the branch, the courts must think about what is constitutionally right. Their decisions should reflect the amendments as well. “Judicial power plays an important role in the rule of law, even while it comes frequently into tension with norms of democratic rule” (Friedman & Delaney, 2011, p. 57, para. 1). This is the only way that citizens will feel like their rights are truly protected.
All things considered, Mark Sutherland has brought together a provocative corps of respected scholars and legal thinkers who collectively offer an incisive critique of a judiciary gone awry while they offer constructive solutions for reform. They make it abundantly clear that we the American people do not have to be slaves to the edicts of these black-robed deities. Their adroit assessment of the federal judiciary is intelligent, rooted in a principled esteem for the rule of law and constitutional popular rule, and their solutions are constitutional defensible, practical and tenable. One thing is resoundingly clear, we must stand up to these demigods in block robes that contravene the design of our federal republic and offer outlandish decisions at odds with the will of the vast majority of the people. It is paramount that the American people awaken and voice their discontent to their elected representatives in Congress if we are to abate judicial tyranny.
The first rule that is presupposed by the action of Officer Jankowski charging Samantha with a DUI can be formulated as; Officers should enforce the law no matter who the accused is. The alternative rule that can be presupposed by Officer Jankowski’s action of letting Samantha off with a warning would be formulated as; Officers should take into consideration who the accused is when enforcing the law. Now, it must be determined who the proper audience for the rule is. All people would be effected by this rule, specifically people who are prone to committing illegal acts. In this case Samantha, her family, Officer Jankowski, the police department, and other citizens driving on the same road as Samantha would be effected by the rules.
As time has progressed, the United States has continuously changed to meet the needs of its people. With each passing day, the country has slowly shifted away from what it had been initially as created by our forefathers. One reason for this transformation has been the nation’s judicial branch which has influenced the course of social and reform movements, as well as our ideologies and beliefs. The court rulings under Earl Warren are evidence that the judicial branch is a powerful force that can be a catalyst for change.
The Court’s effectiveness relies on the institutional capacities as well as the ruling’s popularity. When lower-court judges comply with Supreme Court decisions, rulings can have a substantial effect on social policies, as in the case
Vision Topline vision - what are we here to do [ie transforming relationship between citizen and state]? We work in the Digital, Data and Technology function. Our work is not unique in government; we collaborate with and support teams in other departments within the DDaT profession to help bring about digital transformation in government. Purpose How we put that vision into practice.
