A Supreme Courts nominee’s job is to be confirmed. To do so, they must navigate a Congressional hearing. These confirmation hearings are less about the nominee 's jurisprudence/case history and more about turning the candidate into a two-dimensional character that is composed of political sound bites. Then, it is the applicant’s responsibility to perform the textbook responses artfully to appease their audience. When Michael Dorf wrote, “What is Sonia Sotomayor’s Judicial Philosophy” he brought the public’s attention to the “Confirmation Ground Rules,” Here, he spoke about the choreographed hearing process. A song and dance that is well rehearsed by both parties, the nominee, and committee, which has been the practice for nearly every confirmation
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.
Assignment 5: Anita Hill VS Clarence Thomas Introduction In 1991, Thurgood Marshall, the first African American to serve on the nation’s highest court retired. However, before Thurgood Marshall could retire, someone would have to take his place. In 1991, President George H. W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court where he would eventually be sworn in on October 23, 1991 (EEOC); But before Clarence Thomas was sworn into the U.S. Supreme Court, a scandal involving a college law professor arose.
Oliphant analyzes the delicate balance of choosing political sides as compared to strictly upholding the law. Moreover, intertwined throughout the article, Oliphant records predications for the future of the court. For example, he outlines the potential implications if Romney were to have been elected in the 2012 November presidential race. Oliphant appeals to the reputation of Chief Justice Roberts ' historical appointment, voting history, forecasted impact on the bench, and implied influences by political parties and media, in order to establish Roberts ' credibility, despite a reputation inconsistent with his judiciary colleagues. Oliphants sinuous article, "Tipping the Scales" institutes that readers will arrive at one of two conclusions: Chief Justice Roberts 's decisions are unreliable or his actions are justified based on his
As stated before, appellate judges should be bipartisan and they should not be bringing their own personal opinions up to determine a case. Questioning nominees about their personal views about a case that already has a precedent gives them the idea that the appellate courts are much more polarizing than they actually are. Not only that, but if appellate nominees are subject to a “litmus test” there is a chance that the nominee would feel obligated to be partisan. Like Clarence Thomas, the nominee may become bitter and have their own partisan agenda after going through the unneeded and invasive questioning during their confirmation. This will deter nominees from searching for the right and lawful answers, and instead it will push them towards their own political agenda.
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.
Justice Hugo Black was a United States senator for 10 years and served one of the longest terms in Supreme Court history with thirty four years and one month in the court. As a senator, he was a strong supporter of President’s Roosevelt’s New Deal reformation, therefore leading to his nomination to the Supreme Court in 1937. Justice Black’s rise to the Supreme Court was met with outrage and controversy from the public and the media due to his previous affiliation with the Ku Klux Klan and consequently tainted his reputation nearly costing him his seat in the Supreme Court. However, he was also an advocate for rights of racial equality and a defender of the constitutional rights of the accused. His literal interpretation of the Constitution
Justice Sotomayor’s first interests in the justice system began after she watched an episode of the show Perry Manson, in this particular episode the prosecutor had stated he did not mind loosing when a defendant turned out to be innocent. Justice Sotomayor then later said in an interview that she “made the quantum leap that if that was the prosecutors job the she wanted to be the person who made the decision to dismiss the
You don 't trust me, ask Mr. Trump 's Honorable sister, the Honorable Justice Ginsburg or the rest of the Honorable Supreme Court Justices of the United States of America. But I am standing to fight any Graduates, Professors, Congressmen, Senators or House Speakers. I have been dedicating my life serving you the American people. "Anytime you disagree with the Honorable Justice Garland, you know you are in difficult area." Over the past years, Justice Ginsburg, Mayo, Roberts, including Vice President Biden and President Obama often indicating that.
The United States Supreme Court is not transparent to the citizens in this country and they fail to publicly reveal reasoning’s to their decisions that they have made. The courts non-transparency make people wonder and uncomfortable for congress has to openly show how they voted one bills Jeffrey L. Fisher razes this type of questions in his article “The Supreme Court’s Secret Power” in The New York Times he raises concern for the Supreme Court and the justice; claiming that they have become too powerful and the people of this country deserve to see how each justice vote due we entrusted them I the position and we deserve to know if they are in good favor.
The United States Supreme Court was created by our Founders without many enumerated powers. Through legislation and precedent, the Supreme Court’s duties became apparent to the people and the other governing bodies. From judicial review to understanding unstated fundamental rights, the Supreme Court has furthered the American people’s understanding of our founding document, the Constitution. However, when it comes to the social climate of the United States can the Court dramatically change the people’s social views? There are two ways that the courts have been seen in allowing or impeding social change to be decided by the Courts.
Justices Alito, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts and Scalia collectively agreed the details immersed within the 14th Amendment assisted in their adjudicating the case. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States:…….” On the contrary, dissenting opinions of Justices Stevens, Breyer , Ginsberg and Souter failed to sway the others, leaving the majority on the side of McDonald. All things considered, justice for every U.S. citizen remains at the forefront of societal concerns. Along with the Constitution, the Supreme Court Justices are diligent in defining and conveying laws.
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.
The structure of the book has placed it at the top of the reading list for aspiring law students. It effectively maps out the Supreme Court’s ruling history and also the crucial turning point of progressing American civil liberties. Robert F. Kennedy commented on Gideon’s perseverance stating, “If an obscure Florida convict named Clarence Earl Gideon had not sat down in prison with a pencil and paper to write a letter to the Supreme Court; and if the Supreme Court had not taken the trouble to look at the merits in that one crude petition among all the bundles of mail it must receive every day, the vast machinery of
There are many differences in tone between Texas v. Johnson, and The American Flag Stands for Tolerance. The court opinion of the case Texas v. Johnson, has a very formal tone. The seminal document starts off immediately with and interesting first word, “We.” The word “we” implies that the court is working together on this case, not alone.
When people think of a good judge they typically think of somebody who is fair, not bias and has some sort of experience. However, in today’s society, particularly in the United States, our judicial selection methods are not made to select judges on their ability to reason well and rule impartially (Carter and Burke, 6). On top of that, judges have no actual training before they become part of the judiciary. The only training they receive is in school when they are studying the law. Sometimes when they pursue an apprenticeship with a judge they also get a little bit more experience or insight into a judge’s job.