ipl-logo

Analysis Of Supreme Revenge By Brett Kavanaugh

1349 Words6 Pages

Brett Kavanaugh's nomination hearing was marked by venomous and vitriolic rants that reflected the caustic political climate in America. The documentary's material demonstrates how the Democratic and Republican parties use the judiciary as a political battleground in their contest for power. The Supreme Court has become a politicized, politically dominated body due to a dispute between the two parties that began in the late 1980s. The nominations that were shown in this film were very hasty. Mitch McConnell had a hand in every nomination that was seen in this film. The nomination process seemed like revenge from both parties. That is a sad reality since these decisions might have a long-term impact on American politics and daily life. The FRONTLINE documentary "Supreme Revenge" follows the Republican and Democratic parties' protracted struggle to dominate the Supreme Court. To provide light on the events that took place behind the scenes, the producer has included fragments from conversations with legal professionals, writers, journalists, and workers from Congress and the White House. The documentary opens with a report on Robert Bork's unsuccessful confirmation hearing as a candidate for President Reagan. …show more content…

That look was caused by either the fact that there will be another Republican in the Supreme Court or because they thought that Brett Kavanaugh was a bad man. Still Mitch McConnell had another win in his belt, and he was given the all-powerful description in this film which was assisted by the Federalist Society. There is even a section towards the end of the film where the Supreme Court is called the McConnell Court. That is an accurate assumption since this film portrays Mitch McConnell as the puppet master for the Supreme Court. Since that is portrayed throughout the whole film it makes the ending scene more compelling because it ends with an image of just Mitch

Show More
Related

  • Litigant Henry Xavier Kennedy Case Analysis

    207 Words  | 1 Pages

    Litigant Henry Xavier Kennedy claims the liable decision in a jury trial for the wrongdoing of first degree fire related crime in the September 23, 1981 flame which leveled his log lodge. He guarantees that the jury charges, or now and again called directions to the jury by the judge, were mistaken in a few distinct ways and that there was insufficient proof to convict him of the charge. Kennedy 's building business was moderate, and he had two home loans on the lodge which was the building being referred to. He had restored a protection approach on the building for $40,000 days prior. Kennedy had told agents that he had a strong plausible excuse from 12:00 midnight until 4:00 a.m. which would dispose of him from any wrongdoing since he was

    Read More

  • Summary Of Chief Justice By Ed Cray

    766 Words  | 4 Pages

    On a lesser note, Cray also examines the dichotomy between Warren’s republican background and his role in the development of progressive legislation as Chief Justice. In these controversial cases, Warren asked himself ‘what is right’ before he asked ‘what is the legal precedent.’ Cray craftily points out Warren’s seemingly paradoxical characteristics and views and explains them with great

    Read More

  • How Did Marshall Use Marbury V Madison As Epochal

    756 Words  | 4 Pages

    Marshall’s decision regarding Marbury spurred the Jeffersonians to seek revenge. Jefferson urged the impeachment of an arrogant and tart-tongued Supreme Court justice, Samuel Chase, who was so unpopular that Republicans named vicious dogs after him. Early in 1804 impeachment charges against Chase were voted by the House of Representatives, which then passed the question of guilt or innocence on to the Senate. The indictment by the House was based on “high crimes, and misdemeanors,’’ as specified in the Constitution. Yet the evidence was plain that the intemperate judge had not been guilty of “high crimes,’’ but only of unrestrained partisanship and a big mouth.

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Neil Gorsuch

    812 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The House That Scalia Built Summary

    234 Words  | 1 Pages

    In her Column “The House That Scalia Built”(2016), Jamie Stiehm argues suggest that supreme court justice Antonin Scalia is dead everything will fall apart. Stiehm backs her statement up with logos, she says “often callous in withering dissents on, for example, gay marriage.” Stiehm hopes to persuade her readers to think nothing will go the republicans way anymore. Stiehm uses a mocking sarcastic approach in her column to show she has no sympathy for his death and just wanted her way of thinking.

    Read More

  • Summary Of Antonin Scalia's Adoption Of The Constitution

    688 Words  | 3 Pages

    The articles written by Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer both contribute valid insight on how the Constitution should be interpreted. They, however, end up taking conflicting views on whether to adopt what is known as a living constitution or to bind the judiciary by the original meaning of the document. Throughout their works, the authors mention the importance of objectivity, judicial restraint and the historical context in which the Constitution was written under and whether or not it should apply to the United States today. Scalia argues in favor of the originalist approach, stating that he supports neither a strict nor a loose interpretation of the Constitution, but rather, a reasonable interpretation. Breyer sides with the cosequentialist ideals, claiming that active participation in collective power is paramount when it comes to evaluating the Constitution's place in American law.

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Litmus Tests For Potential Appellate Judges

    787 Words  | 4 Pages

    When the nominees are finally given the opportunity to be a judge, they are under the impression that they have to be partisan. The Senate will continue to not grant hearings for nominees, and the nominees will be continued to be questioned about cases already settled in the Supreme Court. Nominees will continued to be called out on their opinions, even though they have very little to do with their jobs. This may happen, but Rosen found that at that time this was written the D.C. Circuit courts had been becoming more bipartisan and cohesive in the past decade or so. Though, this is the already elected judges and not the nominees.

    Read More

  • Antonin Scalia Research Paper

    722 Words  | 3 Pages

    Zac Deeringer Mrs. Eick-George Government 21st October, 2015 “The Life of Antonin Scalia” Supreme court justices serve a large portion of their life working in the supreme court system and most of their opinions and rulings are based on their lifes experiences and how they were brought up, so in order to understand why they ruled something it is important to know who they are. And the supreme court justice that should be looked at is Antonin Scalia who has been on the supreme court since September 26th, 1986. Mr. Scalia was born in Trenton New Jersey on March 11th, 1936 being the only child to Salvadore Eugene and Catherine Panaro Scalia. His father was a Sicilian immigrant who came to america as a teenager, and his mother was a first generation italian-american. Mr. Scalia grew up in the Queens as an only child (which is uncommon among Italian-Catholics).

    Read More

  • Two Significant Inconsistencies In Dr. Scott's Lecture On The Judiciary

    598 Words  | 3 Pages

    In her response lecture, Professor West identifies two very significant inconsistencies in Dr. Scott's lecture on the Judiciary. Professor West says, "You can tell a lot about a teacher by what they lecture. You can also tell a lot about a teacher by what they don't lecture or what they leave out"(West, 2:27). This idea is very apparent when it comes to Dr. Scott's lecture. Not only does Dr. Scott leave out some very vital information in his lectures, but he provides misinformation and makes contradictory points in his lecture.

    Read More

  • Public Opinion In Supreme Court Confirmations By Jonathan Kastellec

    637 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the piece titled” Public Opinion in Supreme Court Confirmations,” Jonathan Kastellec presents the role of the public’s opinion in the Supreme courts final decision on who will serve on the bench. Kastellec presents the idea of electoral incentives by senators tying the Supreme Court nominations directly back to the public. Nevertheless, public opinion influences the votes of the individuals who ultimately cast the ballot. Therefore, decisions on who sits on the court aren’t only in the hands of the president or the senate to decide. In the grand scheme of events, there is a connection between the Supreme Court and the American public.

    Read More

  • 1996 Presidential Election Pros And Cons

    1208 Words  | 5 Pages

    Republicans took over much of the seats in the house for the first time in a long period of 40 years. It was clear from the beginning the Bill Clinton would win because he was charismatic, trustworthy, and was what the people wanted. During the campaign, “The National Law Party” was formed, which was a party founded on the principles of the application

    Read More

  • Sonia Sotomayor's Speech To The Supreme Court

    797 Words  | 4 Pages

    Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latina nominated for the Supreme Court, gave a speech to the Senate Judiciary Committee about her work experience as a judge and her outlook on education. Sotomayor speaks about her experinces as a judge, along with the hard work she put into her education that earned her scholarships into two Ivy League schools. Sotomayor’s purpose is to seek the support from the Senate Judiciary Committee by giving an image to show she is eligible to be in the Supreme Court. Sotomayor supports her purpose with her background story about her education and her occupations as a judge. Sotomayor uses rhetorical appeals and a grateful tone to persuade the committee she is an applicable candidate to be in the Supreme Court.

    Read More

  • Summary Of Gerald Rosenberg's Book 'The Hollow Hope'

    710 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Justice Thurgood Marshall Analysis

    1324 Words  | 6 Pages

    Justice Thurgood Marshall Response Justice Thurgood Marshall said in his “Reflections on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution”, “I do not believe the meaning of the Constitution was forever ‘fixed’ at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, that we hold as fundamental as today” (Marshall). In this passage of his essay, Judge Marshall is critical of the government that is

    Read More

  • Essay On Judicial Selection

    801 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

More about Analysis Of Supreme Revenge By Brett Kavanaugh

Open Document