In regards to the detailed studies of both Segal and Spaeth, and Brenan and Stier, valid points had been made for both sides of the argument. The question posed is rather or not stare decisis still exist in the courts rulings today. Segal and Spaeth analyze the rulings of dissenting judges of landmark cases since the start of the Warren Court while excluding cases with unanimous decisions and cases without progeny within the legal period. The areas of which they dissected and constructed the particular datasets for analyzing is superb as it specifically narrows down the specific information there looking for within their results. The findings from there assessments concluded that precedent did not play a overwhelming role in the sub sequential
Rosenberg first gives rough definitions of the "Dynamic Court" and the "Constrained Court," which he considers the two possible views to be held about the court system's influence, though he believes both are over simplifications by themselves. The "Dynamic Court" sees the judiciary "as powerful, vigorous, and potent proponents of change" (Rosenberg 1991, 2). Proponents this theory alone believe the courts have great power and influence to effect social change, but Rosenberg believes the 'mystification' of the judicial system has given this view more allure than truth. Under the "Constrained Court" theory, courts are "weak, powerless, and ineffective for change," have little power nor influence to
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.
Textualism, as Antonin Scalia describes it, is inconsistent in its nature. While he first claims that a good textualist would never interpret the law with the legislator’s intent in mind, Scalia later violates his own convictions by allowing for corrections of Scrivener’s errors. In principle, correcting Scrivener’s errors requires the judge to think about what the original writer meant to say with the statute, not the literal meaning of the text. This may mean adding a single additional word to the statute, but something as deceptively simple as one word could have drastic effects on the meaning of the law. Therefore, Scalia cannot claim to account for Scrivener’s errors while also chastising methods of interpretation that consider what the
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.
George Washington Outline (April 30, 1789 – March 4, 1797) 1) Judiciary Act - (1789) This act created the basis for the modern day judicial system. The Judiciary act provided America with its own courts, justices and attorney generals. Another very important court this act created was the Supreme Court. It is still very critical to the government today.
The Judiciary Act of 1801, a law that created more federal judge positions, contributed to the establishment of judicial review by becoming the first law to be overturned by the process of judicial review and because it caused Chief Justice John Marshall to lay down three principles for judicial review. To begin, the Judiciary Act of 1801 was created shortly before President John Adams left office as an attempt of the Federalist party in order to help keep as many Federalists as possible in government. Adams did this knowing that he or any of his fellow Federalists would not be elected as president. This law evoked the case Marbury vs. Madison, a case between a man who had been promised a job created by the Judiciary Act of 1801 and the secretary
Constitution was created to lay the foundation of laws in the newly formed United States of America in 1787. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine, and John Adams all wrote the Constitution with one common goal of all men receiving right to the natural freedoms of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” These were all rights that could not be infringed upon; they were the core principles of a nation that arose above previous colonial oppressions. The framers, when creating the Constitution, had to make sure that every individual voice was being heard and that laws were made in a fair, orderly manner. Today, the Constitution continues to be the overarching law of the United States, and even its framers might not necessarily agree with some of its modern-day interpretations.
Acts of Congress: Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 With every well thought out story there always seems to be an unspoken hero. There is always a certain individual that gets the ball rolling, but they never get the credit they deserve. The government of the United States of America is no exception, and they too have such a character in their story. That character would be the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789.
The Constitution of the United States is the concrete platform that the nation is built upon which contains fundamental principles in which our nation is governed by. However, much of the Constitution is very ambiguous which leads to controversy in the court room. For example, the Eighth Amendment which states that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” (Baltzell). The first part of the Eighth Amendment protects accused citizens of the United States from unreasonable and extreme amounts of bail that would prevent them from being released from pretrial containment and it also limits the amount of a fine that can be given to a convicted person (8th Amendment)(Kurt). The
The way something is interpreted is how it is used in the practices of law, so indeed the way something is written is imperative. Judicial Review is never actually explicitly stated and described in the constitution. The importance of interpretation goes right along with the concept of judicial review. If you boil things down that’s all judicial review is, a concept. Now this ‘concept’ was derived from the constitution by our justices in the supreme court, but it is something that falls under the interpretation of the constitution.
Courts prove unsuccessful in achieving social change due to the constraints on the court’s power. Rosenburg’s assessment that courts are “an institution that is structurally challenged” demonstrates the Constrained Court view. In this view, the Court’s lack of judicial independence, inability to implement policies, and the limited nature of constitutional rights inhibit courts from producing real social reform. For activists to bring a claim to court, they must frame their goal as a right guaranteed by the constitution, leading to the courts hearing less cases (Rosenburg 11). The nature of the three branches also creates a system of checks and balances in which Congress or the executive branch can reverse a controversial decision, rendering the Court’s impact void.
Many people say the education is the key to success, but the path to higher education is notably harder to achieve due to high costs and immense course work. Community college is one path students take to earning a bachelor’s degree while others jump straight from high school to a four year university. Although the goal of this country is to push more students towards the path of higher education, many people advocate for more financial support. Some people believe community college should be fully funded by the federal government because it would encourage low income high school students to earn bachelor’s degrees and help alleviate the costs. Although some people may argue that community college should be free, federal funding should not
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.
The law is an intriguing concept, evolving from society’s originalities and moral perspectives. By participating in the legal system, we may endeavour to formulate a link between our own unique beliefs and the world in which we live. Evidently, a just sense of legality is a potent prerequisite for change, enabling society to continue its quest for universal equality and justice. Aristotle once stated that "even when laws have been written down, they ought not to remain unaltered".
