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. The court 's jurisdiction is its authority to hear cases of a particular type. The original jurisdiction is the authority to be the first court to hear a case. The supreme court 's most important work is the Appellate jurisdiction, which is the authority to review cases that have already been heard in lower courts and are appealed to a higher court by a losing party. Nearly all cases that reach the Supreme Court do so after the losing party in lower court asks the court to hear its case. The court issues a Writ of certiorari.
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. Furthermore, in their articles, Scalia and Breyer both take time to criticize their opponent's arguments. This results in some interesting and well thought out points formulated by each party.
With the death of Antonin Scalia, a super conservative justice, both Republican and Democratic parties are fighting for their party to be the majority in the supreme court. President Obama can choose a democrat to be seated on the supreme court causing the once republican majority to be in favor of the democrats. Not happy with this idea, republicans wish for the choice of the next Justice to be appointed after the upcoming election in 2016.
Antonin Scalia was a very interesting man with very interesting opinions. The talk held in his honor in the moot courtroom taught me a lot about what kind of man he was and what his opinions were on many of the major Supreme Court Cases. One of the most interesting things I learned about Scalia at the talk was that he had an extensive, and sometimes strange, vocabulary. Sometimes called “Scalegalese,” the words that Antonin Scalia chose to use in his opinions were not words that one would hear in every day conversation. In his dissent in King v Burwell, Scalia spoke of the Court’s “jiggery-pokery,” and in another instance, he called the Court’s upholding of Obamacare “somersaults of statutory interpretation.”
Justice Scalia of the United States Supreme Court produced a dissent after the decision made in Obergefell v. Hodges and expressed his reasons behind what he believed to be an incredibly poor decision made by the Court. In the dissent Scalia explains how the decision could be a threat to the way the American Government works and could have a serious effect on our future. Past decisions made by the Court as well as past interpretations of the Constitution are both a part of Scalia’s argument. These components of his argument all contribute to his overall strategy to in the dissent. To explain his vote against gay marriage, Scalia uses his knowledge of the US system of government and plays on the emotions of the US citizens who have a strong
Tasked with appointing a replacement for the deceased Justice Antonin Scalia, the President set about finding somebody who would represent his views and protect the interests of his administration in every decision. That person turned out to be Neil Gorsuch. President Trump’s decision came as a surprise to many political pundits given the fact that Gorsuch had previously labeled Trump’s criticism of the American judiciary system as “disheartening” and “demoralizing”. Still, Trump needed a big win to start his time in the White House off right and there could have been no bigger win at that time than pulling the Supreme Court out of chaos. On April 10th, 2017, Trump’s nomination of Gorsuch to the Supreme Court was approved, bringing a little-publicized end to the much-publicized year-long vacancy left by former Associate Justice Scalia.
On August 8, 2009, Sonia Maria Sotomayor became the first justice of Hispanic descent to be seated on the United States Supreme Court. Her upbringing in a Puerto Rican household in the Bronx, significantly shaped her decision making first on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (1991-1997) and later, on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1997 - 2009). Today, Sotomayor continually advocates for the basic rights of Americans; this is demonstrated in two of her recent opinions: (1) her 58 page dissent of the Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (2014) decision, in which the Court decided, 6-2, that states could prohibit the use of affirmative action at public universities; and (2) and her opinion on the Brumfield v. Cain (2015) which
Bill Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the United States Supreme Court (a). The U.S. senate confirmed Ruth Bader with a 96 to 3 confirmation vote. Stephen Breyer was confirmed by the senate with an 87 to 9 vote. (b) Article two sections 2 of the U.S. constitution give the president the power to appoint public officials with the consent of the senate.
The court went from being completely liberal and did a 180 all the way back to conservatism. How will conservatism make its mark here, in the twenty-first century? Will liberals win back the courts? Will a new political stance, somewhere between the two rise to fame? Presidents Bush and Reagan both were influential conservatives who did what they thought was best for this country.
I do think that Neil Gorsuch is qualified to take the position as the new supreme court justice. He is known to have an outstanding resume; He graduated from Harvard Law School and he studied under a lawyer named John Finnis. Neil knows what it is like to be a conservative on a liberal college campus. Gorsuch co-founded The MorningSide Review and The Federalist while he was in Columbia University in New York. Gorsuch and his two other co-founders believed that the campus had primarily liberal political views.
For instance, Obama appointed positions that are more liberal, as to Bush, who appointed positions to more conservative justices. Due to this, they can use assignment to actuate on the court’s decision-making. The Supreme Court influences how the laws should be defined and coordinated to cases using current laws and the Constitution. There are many factors that have an effect on the Supreme Court.
If the constitution were not to evolve with society, this idea of who “we” represents would have never changed. Despite their conflicting views, Scalia and Ginsburg has a thriving friendship. Scalia would attempt to “put-down” any view that opposed his, including Ginsburg’s. However, when asked how she feels about these put-downs, Ginsburg states his opinion is not o be taken seriously or to heart. Scalia see’s all the supreme court justice’s as implausible if they disagree with him on a matter.
The Court is less likely to invalidate important statutes that enjoy greater support among current lawmakers (p. 4). Further, "...the data show that this majoritarian pattern is the product of the Court’s decisions at the agenda setting stage; the Court rarely invalidates important laws with strong majority support because the justices rarely hear challenges to such laws" (Hall & Ura, 2015, pp. 4-5). The Supreme Court 's recent ruling on marriage equality may be an example of this process where the justices were split down the middle on the issue both in numbers and in terms of their nominating parties. Of the nine justices, four opposing justices were nominated by Republican presidents and four pro justices were nominated by Democrats, where the outlier that tipped the ruling was nominated by a Republican president
This is not to say that judges do not operate under the legal boundaries as set by the constitution, but some have argued that since the discretionary powers of judges and Supreme Court judges, in this case, can significantly affect the outcome of any judicial decision, then their ideology and personal philosophy is quite important especially when they would be voting on significant cases. Finally, both sides of the divide recognize the importance, and role ideology plays in the major legal decisions. Ideology matters and a person’s thinking is bound to influence the way they will vote on important issues, and this is why interest groups on both sides of the ideological divide have strong reasons for making judicial confirmation a high priority because they know what is at stake in who occupies the federal bench. Lawrence H. Tribe.
I chose Sonia Sotomayor because she faced a lot of challenges like diabetes when she was 7 years old.She also had a alcoholic father and died.Her mother worked two jobs or more to survive.She helped her cousin to buy drugs right before his death from AIDS().She also had to deal with discrimination by lawyers.She overcame lots.She injected herself for her diabetes because her mom worked 2 jobs and her dad was always drunk.She also got discriminated by other people because she was Hispanic. She overcame lots of obstacles that’s why I picked Sonia Sotomayor.