Pros And Cons Of The Supreme Court

Under the U.S. Constitution, this appointment is a lifelong position that will only be nullified if the judge resigns their post or dies in office. This creates serious contests within the partisan political environment found among federal representatives, for any candidate appointed to this post helps define the direction of the Supreme Court for the rest of their life. Thus, it is frequently believed that a president who appoints a judge to the Supreme Court is creating a legacy, helping to shape the direction of the laws for the country for a time long after their presidency has expired. This makes the selection of a judge a hotly contested process.

President Obama publicly disagreed with the decision but could not change it. The President decides on nominations who are then put under scrutiny while he receives the ‘advise and consent’ of the Senate judiciary committee. There is therefore a small democratic link however it is very weak. Once a Justice is appointed they cannot be removed and are independent of the other political bodies this can be evidenced by Eisenhower’s appointments, a Republican conservative who appointed 2 liberal justices, something he regretted so much so that when asked if there were any regrets after his time in office he replied “I have made two mistakes, and they are both sitting on the Supreme Court”. As stated before the judiciary is independent and once Supreme Justices are appointed they cannot be fired or dismissed this leaves a huge deficit of accountability, a key factor of democracy.

Parties: Plaintiff: Howard I. Ginsburg, as Administrator of the Estate of Bradley Marc Ginsburg, Defendants: City of Ithaca and Cornell University.

Justice Ginsburg wrote a 36-page dissent joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The first eight pages outline the extensive effort put forth by congress when researching, crafting and updating the 2009 version of the VRA. Justice Ginsburg argues that the question before the court ought to be whether or not congress acted appropriately within the authority granted under the constitution, namely the 15th amendment and the constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause as interpreted in McCulloch v. Maryland, “all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted” to address the issue of discrimination in voting with appropriate legislation. The justice argues that the majority does not follow established precedent or tests when determining the ruling in this case as set out by MuCulloch v. Maryland, Norwest Austin, Katzenberg, or City of Rome. Ginsburg uses these examples to contend that the majority is improperly evaluating the case and creating an entirely new precedent that ignores current case law. Instead of ruling on the constitutional breadth of authority provided by the rationality test and the 15th amendment, the majority has chosen instead to pass judgment on the language in the

The United States Constitution was drafted up to help America grow as a country and be a country where everyone wanted to live. It was written as a guidline to follow to ensure its citizens rights and liberties, and their pursuit to happiness. There is a lot of controversy over the US constitution on whether or not some of the things in there are good or bad or what not. I think that the United States Constitution was very well written and it follows a very principalistic guidline and it has its own moral and principals. Just like the unalienable rights that everyone talks about. These rights are meant to stand for its people. They cannot be taken away from the government, they cant be tampered with by the government or anything like

Justice of the peace courts is low-level courts. These courts are found only in Arizona, Delaware, Louisiana, Montana, and Texas. Justice of the peace courts has original jurisdiction over Class C misdemeanors that include: traffic violations, bail jumping, and bail check writing and minor civil matters that issue search and arrest warrants depending on certain situations. Justices are known for keeping the peace. They can arrest criminals or insane people, order the removal of people who behave in a disorderly fashion in a public place and carry out other duties designed to maintain or restore a peaceful community. The cons to Justices of the peace is that they have limited power in criminal and civil cases. Their powers of civil jurisdiction

Former Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, died on February 13th, 2016, leaving the Supreme Court with an empty seat. Antonin Scalia was a known conservative and due to his passing the Supreme Court has become split evenly by political party with its remaining eight justices. At the 2016 National Lawyers Convention of the Federalist Society, Senator Ted Cruz addressed a packed room that may be, “… the single largest collection of individuals who are likely to serve in the new administration…” (Robert Barnes, 2016) Many people in attendance were also wondering if Ted Cruz was willing to take up residency in the vacant ninth seat on the Supreme Court. President-elect Donald Trump is the only

Republican claim says that we do not have enough time to elect a new justice but I believe we do. The longest election was 100 days long and we have way more than 100 days before the new President takes office. The Republicans are also being unconstitutional.

NPR’s legal affairs correspondent, Nina Totenberg, described a “horrible political storm” brewing over the Supreme Court of the United States (“CNN,” 2016, p. 1). While reporting for CNN, Totenberg used these words to draw attention to the untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia in an era of modern politics in which the court has become more polarized than ever. The Supreme Court, the highest court of the land, is not only being severely impacted by partisan ties, but is now also deciding cases according to these biased beliefs. The Democratic and Republican parties, after corrupting and encroaching upon the federal judiciary, have made court nominations and rulings into a game of party politics, inevitably destroying the impartiality of the

1. The Constitution is liberal document because people believed in governmental action to achieve equal opportunity and equality among everyone. Rather than conservatives. Which believed in limited government, individual liberty, traditional value and strong national defense. was developed to a guide a new nation of people based on the principles of a free society, The constitution protect the economic market system citizens from the elites, greed of big business.

Do you want more freedom? Will you take sides with Publius or Brutus? There will be a new constitution if you choose Publius, our Federal government will be powerful enough to conserve our freedom, promote our trade and protect our properties! This is why the new Constitution is the best idea! The AOC does not give enough power.

Many could argue that the Constitution, although it is the foundation of our American democracy, it is outdated or undemocratic. Robert Dahl made valid points in his argument about the Constitution, which in several ways blatantly disregards the democratic norms of today. Although the Framers had an idea of how they wanted to establish a democratic form of government, they failed in some areas. Such as: • It took ¾ of a century and a Civil War before the abolishment of slavery. • Senators were not chosen by the people.

The first part of this essay will provide a brief insight into the history of the Supreme Court, the original intentions of the founding fathers and a discussion on how they idealized the relationship between politics and the law. The second section will explore how the contemporary process to which judges are appointed has become significantly influenced by politics. The third section will discuss how the Supreme Court overstepped its boundaries on constitutional interpretation in the Roe v. Wade case. The final section will unpack the importance of partisanship and ideological politics and discuss how it impacts the function of the Justices in their

Reading Analysis #1 At the time the American Constitution was created, the only people with any power were rich, educated, white men. Because they had so much control, they were able to build the Constitution in their image. They assembled a set of rules and values that was meant to give rise to a strong and equal government, when in reality it gave elites such as themselves even more power. The American Constitution is the base of our country and because of this we look past its faults.

The criminal justice system has been proven to play a very important role in society. The criminal justice system is used to keep the citizens in check and to make sure that the laws that are made are being followed. It also is there to penalize anyone who disobeys the laws. In the criminal justice system, there are 3 main parts, law enforcement, adjudication, and corrections. Law enforcement is self-explainable. It consists of the law enforcers such as police officers and sheriffs. Adjudication is made up of people in the court house such as judges and lawyers. Corrections is made up of jailhouse matters such as prison officials. In these many components of the criminal justice system, there are all put in place to help correct people to do the right thing. There are punitive efforts and rehabilitative efforts. At time, the system may lean towards one category or more, which can be dangerous in terms of disciplinary action. The criminal justice system is more punitive than rehabilitative which makes the system ineffective.