The founding father’s idea when they created the Constitution was to prevent a centralized government. As expressed by James Madison in Federalist No. 51, they believe that the power surrendered by people would be divided between the federal and state governments, creating balance of power that would enable both governments to control each other. Over time, the balance of power between the federal and state governments has shifted in favor of the federal government and this has taken place with the help of the Constitution and by enactments of Congress. The role that Chief Justice John Marshall played in defining the power of the federal and state governments during the early 19th century is important to mention because he shaped the nation.
The quality of judges would without a doubt increase if they were appointed. However, I do not agree with the idea of judges being appointed. When looking at the partisan aspect you notice several possible issues with one issue being, is that individual the right person to do the job. Partisan election of judges allows for an individual that may not be as qualified for the job to be elected into the position. Nevertheless the partisan election of judges gives the voters what they want based on party affiliation along with qualifications.
In the past, certain principles of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Fourth Amendment changed with each Chief Justice. Between the years 1953 and 2005, there had been three of them, each modifying the main focus and making exceptions to searches and seizures by police. Their names were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Warren E. Burger, and William H Rehnquist. With each alternation of each of them came the names referring to the Supreme Court for those time periods. First, the Warren Court, focused on bringing attention to the exclusionary rule in order to protect citizens from being charged with ilegally-obtained evidence.
Samad Quraishi Mr. Mesa US/VA Government Honors 11 January 2023 Prompt: Is "court-packing" an appropriate response to criticisms directed at the United States Supreme Court? Packing the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is a bad idea. SCOTUS has been the highest court of the land throughout our country's history. They have the power to determine whether a law is Constitutional or not, yet in recent years the court has become overwhelmingly conservative and politicized.
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.
I disagree that U.S courts should follow a "hands-off" approach because inmates would have the most disadvantages. Correctional administrators and correctional officers have a common ground and would most likely to stick up to each other if an inmate gets into the bad side of officers and disciplining them inappriopriate ways such as the incident involving the nutraloaf. U.S courts could come up in way that is fair for the inmates and according to their offenses. In the context, the “deliberate indifference” would mean that the prison officials did not violated the Eighth Amendment rights and, therefore, did not put an inmate in harm by wthe continuous serving of nutraloafs. In my definition, deliberate indifference would favor an inmate's
When people think of a good judge they typically think of somebody who is fair, not bias and has some sort of experience. However, in today’s society, particularly in the United States, our judicial selection methods are not made to select judges on their ability to reason well and rule impartially (Carter and Burke, 6). On top of that, judges have no actual training before they become part of the judiciary. The only training they receive is in school when they are studying the law. Sometimes when they pursue an apprenticeship with a judge they also get a little bit more experience or insight into a judge’s job.
Partisan Elections for Judges Being a primarily Republican state, most Texas judges are also republicans. This is because judges in Texas are elected and voted upon by the public, not appointed. Most judges are initially appointed. The governor fills in vacancies in the judiciary with confirmation of the Senate. These appointees are then reelected, most often, with no opposition.
The important powers that came after Marbury vs. Madison, such as interpreting a person’s problem and judicial review, show that the Supreme Court really does affect the political process. In fact, once judicial review came into effect, the whole system of government changed. Before judicial review came into play with the help of John Marshall, the legislative branch or executive branch could create a law without interference. However, once judicial review came into play with the help of John Marshall, the legislative branch and executive branch were forced to see whether the Supreme Court would approve of their suggested laws and bills (Edwards III, Wattenburg, and Lineburry
I believe that a person can predict a decision that the Supreme Court Justices make because of their views are liberal or conservative. Because of their views on either side, they deal with cases by finding loopholes to interpret the laws to make it suitable for the case that works on their side (Pollack, 2017). The final legislation and authority in this country are The United States Supreme Court, despite the objective decision making they decide constitutional cases which are sometimes far from a neutral outcome. The federal judges and the Supreme Court Justices and appointed by the president because it is a political contest between the liberals and the conservatives so that when there is a substantial issue like abortion, there is only
It is observed that larger salmon tend to be more likely to die during spawning season due to stranding in shallow waters, and predation by gulls and bears. There is a selection pressure against large body size despite the advantages it brings, such as being able to gather more territory, ability to carry more eggs. Quinn and Buck conducted an experiment in various creeks in Alaska over the span of two years to determine the extent of size selection and sexual selection contributing to the mortality of the sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus spp., during spawning season. The research was conducted from 1997 to 1999, and they collected data by walking by the creeks and examining the dead salmon carcass. They measured the length of the fish, their
Robert Isenhour Federal Government 110 10/10/17 Judicial Review Judicial Review had been obsolete until 1803 when the need for it arose in the case of Marbury vs. Madison, where it was then found to become a new component to the Judicial Branch. I am here to discuss why judicial review is and shall remain a doctrine commonly used in constitutional law. Judicial Review is the power for courts to review other government branches to determine the validity of its actions whether it be constitutional or unconstitutional. These ‘acts’ can be described as legislation passed by congress, presidential orders and actions, or all state and local governmental actions.
Hana Kim Professor Yvonne Wollenberg Law and Politics 106 7 October 2015 Title In the United States government, there are three branches called the legislative, executive, and judicial branch. Out of these three, the judicial branch is the most powerful. The judicial branch is made up of the Supreme Court, the court with the most power in the country, and other federal courts that are lower in the system; the purpose of this branch is to look over laws and make sure they are constitutional and reasonable.
March 17, 2023 Student Debt and its Impact on America’s Scholars Americans currently owe a total of $1.7 trillion in student loan debt, and if we focus on an individual borrower, that person would carry an average of $30,000 in student loans. Student debt is a known issue in the university system and affects millions of students every year. As tuition increases and mortgages also rise, students have been resorting to borrowing to make their way through school. However, abusing the privilege to borrow a loan will add up over time, causing long term problems in the future. Although loans can be helpful every once in a while, it would be ideal to try to prevent borrowing.
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.
