The justices of the Supreme Court of the United States have the choice of following one of the two judicial philosophies when ruling on federal cases. Some justices prefer the philosophy of judicial activism which allows for the justices to go beyond the printed words of the constitution when interpreting the amendments and their meanings to allow them to slightly use their personal views of right and wrong. This is used in many major cases involving civil rights to conform to the times of change. Strict constructionism is the second judicial philosophy used by Supreme Court justices. When this philosophy is followed, justices typically adhere to what the constitution clearly states in black and white. These justices try to hold onto …show more content…
The legislative branch makes the laws, the judicial branch interprets the laws, and the executive branch enforces the laws. The Supreme Court of the United States falls under the judicial branch of government. The role of the Supreme Court is to practice judicial review by deciding whether the laws in question are constitutional or not. In the case of Obergefell v. Hodges the Supreme Court did more than just interpret the law and decide if it is constitutional, the justices of this case took the duties of the legislative branch by adding their own views and establishing law. The unelected Supreme Court justices did not find anywhere in the Constitution that established marriage as a fundamental right that needed protection. Instead, these justices practiced judicial activism. Whether or not marriage between same-sex couples should be legalized and recognized is a matter falling under the responsibilities of state legislature and their electorates. If marriage were to be defined anywhere in the constitution as a right or liberty of the American people then the Supreme Court’s actions could be justified, but this is not the case. The justices implied marriage as a fundamental liberty and established a law to protect it. When establishing law it is crucial and mandatory that it comes from elected officials that are following the wishes of their electorates. If the
John Marshall’s Supreme Court hearings had a positive effect on the United States. From court cases like McCulloch v. Maryland, declared that the federal courts could decide if state laws were unconstitutional. The McCulloch v. Maryland trial went to the supreme court because Maryland had put a tax in place that too 2% of all assets of the bank or a flat rate of $30,000. John Marshall saw this tax as unconstitutional for the simple fact that people were being denied their property under the state legislature. From the Gibbons v. Ogden case, congress’s power over interstate commerce was strengthened.
The argument/famous Supreme Court case Madison vs. Marbury asked us the question should the Judicial Branch be able to declare laws unconstitutional. I think the Judicial Branch should be able to declare a law unconstitutional. I believe this because the judicial branch is very small, they have no other checks on any other branch, and they don’t receive any money. The Judicial Branch is so small.
The Constitution was originally divided into seven articles. The first article in the Constitution grants the Legislative Branch its powers along with its limitations. It states that the Legislative Branch- also known as Congress- is divided into two houses: the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Congress has the authority to manage money by taxing, borrowing money, and regulating trade. Additionally, other important powers Congress incorporates is the authority to raise armies and preserving the navy.
Federal Judges and Supreme Court Justices The process for electing a federal judge is both a simple, yet complicated one. A number of things take place between the need for a nominee and the appointment to a position. The basis for the nomination and appointment of federal judges and Supreme Court Justices is the Appointments Clause (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) of the United States Constitution: “The President...shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law....” First a vacancy must be present at which time the President can make a nomination.
Sonia Sotomayor, was a daughter of Puerto Rican immigrants. She suffers from diabetes and was raised in a low income family with an alcoholic father in Bronx, New York. When Sotomayor was nine, her father passed away. Her Mother worked six days a week as a nurse. She attended a catholic school called Cardinal Spellman.
Alex Frost Values: Law & Society 9/23/2014 The Hollow Hope Introduction and Chapter 1 Gerald Rosenberg begins his book by posing the questions he will attempt to answer for the reader throughout the rest of the text: Under what conditions do courts produce political and social change? And how effective have the courts been in producing social change under such past decisions as Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education? He then works to define some of the principles and view points 'currently' held about the US Supreme court system.
“There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right. ”(Martin Luther King, Jr.) Most people were racist but now since the civil rights have been established most have stopped being racist and moved on. Three supreme court case decisions influenced the civil rights movements by letting more and more poeple know what the Supreme Court was doing to African Americans,and of the unfair him crow laws:(Dred Scott v. Sanford,Plessy v. Ferguson,Brown v. Board of Education). Dred Scott v. Sanford Is a case that most people felt that Dred Scott had an unfair charge against him.
It is this branch that can also hear appeals and interpret the laws of the constitution. The Judicial power of the United States is vested in the Supreme Court. Justices of the Supreme Court are appointed by the president but must be confirmed by the Senate. Every bill must be proposed and passed through the House of Representatives and Senate then sent to the president to be signed into law. If the president does not approve of the law he will send it back to congress with his objections and the law must then be voted by 2/3 the House and Senate to become law.
The Executive branch executes laws and is the president. The Judicial branch judges laws and is the Supreme Court. The Legislative branch creates laws and is the House of Representatives and Senate. James Madison said in Federalist Paper #47 Document B, “the accumulation of all powers...in the same hands...may be justly pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” This helps protect from tyranny because the Separation of Powers prevents all power from being in the same hands.
In addition, the executive branch was responsible for enforcing or vetoing laws passed by Congress (in addition to its other powers). As for the judiciary, it is responsible for interpreting federal laws and the constitution and for overseeing the decisions made by the federal and state courts. Before when it was unable to address economic and boundary disputes, the judiciary under the constitution was able to address a wide range conflicts. Above all, these three branches of government share equal power to prevent one form of government from becoming too
1. The supreme court is the highest federal court in the United States. It consists of nine supreme court justices. Federal judges are nominated by the president and approved by the senate. Once appointed the justices will serve on the supreme court for the rest of their lives, unless they are impeached.
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 executive branch can check the laws congress wants to pass and can veto them if he disagrees. The Legislative branch can check the executive by accepting the already vetoed law and can impeach or fire the president out of office. The Justice Branch can make sure peoples rights and liberties are being followed and check if the laws follow the constitution's rules. In the text, it says “To further limit government power the framers provided for separation of powers the constitution separates the government into three branches Congress of the legislative branch makes the laws. The executive branch headed by the president carries out laws.
Different judges will have different interpretation of cases; hence, they may bind a single case with various precedents making it more difficult to pass a judgment. In this type of situation even competent judges may find it complicated to decide on the ‘ratio decidendi’. Nevertheless, there are a lot of case laws and deciding which case law best appropriates to a case is not always an easy task, as it is time consuming and very stressful to find the most suitable precedent. Therefore, not only the doctrine of judicial precedent has the disadvantage of being complex, while the judges are discussing which case law to apply to a specific case, justice is at the same time being delayed.
The legal implications and feasibility of integrating the Syariah courts into the federal judicial system through restoration of Article 121 of Federal Constitution Prior to 1988, Article 121(1) of Federal Constitution provided as follows: Subject to Clause (2) the judicial power of the Federation shall be vested in two High Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction and status, namely— (a) one in the States of Malaya, which shall be known as the High Court in Malaya and shall have its principal registry in Kuala Lumpur; and (b) one in the States of Sabah and Sarawak, which shall be known as the High Court in Borneo and shall have its principal registry at such place in the States of Sabah and Sarawak as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may determine;