Scalia had a stellar background in the law of administrative agencies. This made him a prime choice for Ronald Regan. His background was one where he was a careful reader and analyzed each and every case in fine detail. Where there are cases with no in cases with no philosophical valence, it soon became clear his colleagues often looked to him for legal guidance. Finally, all his previous work propelled Scalia in the light to be noticed by The President for further appointment.
They also explore Marshall’s Harvard Law Review in 1987. The author also examines and reflects Marshall’s opinions as a justice in the U.S. Supreme Court hearing Payne v. Tennessee. The author also reviews Marshalls court briefing in the case Brown v. Board of Education. Hemingway, Anna, et. al.
Justice William Brennan and Attorney General Edwin Meese held different views on the interpretation of the Constitution when it came to ruling in a case. Brennan held the view that judicial review should be done constitutionally, but to keep human dignity in mind when ruling in a case. Brennan makes his opinion on the matter known saying, “The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights solemnly committed the United States to be a country where the dignity and rights of all persons were equal before all authority.” (Brennan). Unlike Brennan, Meese believed in sticking strictly to what the constitution stated for most matters.
Woodrow Wilson once referred to the Supreme Court as “a constant constitutional convention in continuous session”, due to the role they have played in interpreting the constitution as it is written. Due to the ambiguity found in much of the phrasing in the constitution, judicial interpretation of the constitution can be considered both necessary and inevitable (Comer, Gruhl et al., 2001). The courts have the power to declare unconstitutional the actions of the other branches and units of the government in what is known as judicial review (Tannahil, 2002). The first case in which the court elaborated on the principle of judicial review was that of Marbury v. Madison in 1803 and put forward that in the case of conflict between the constitution and a statute, it is “the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is” (Smith, 1975). Following this, the case of Fletcher v Peck (1810) is of equal importance as it was the first case in which a state law was declared by the court to be unconstitutional.
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
All things considered, Mark Sutherland has brought together a provocative corps of respected scholars and legal thinkers who collectively offer an incisive critique of a judiciary gone awry while they offer constructive solutions for reform. They make it abundantly clear that we the American people do not have to be slaves to the edicts of these black-robed deities. Their adroit assessment of the federal judiciary is intelligent, rooted in a principled esteem for the rule of law and constitutional popular rule, and their solutions are constitutional defensible, practical and tenable. One thing is resoundingly clear, we must stand up to these demigods in block robes that contravene the design of our federal republic and offer outlandish decisions at odds with the will of the vast majority of the people. It is paramount that the American people awaken and voice their discontent to their elected representatives in Congress if we are to abate judicial tyranny.
Edwin Meese III held quite a different view as compared to that of William Brennan. Meese held the opinion of strictly following exactly what is stated in the Constitution of the United States, otherwise known as fidelity. In his essay he focuses on fidelity often. Edwin Meese portrays his belief in his essay as he quoted Justice Joseph Story, “The First and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties.” (Meese).
Brennan believed that all important reading such as the Constitution require the reader to go much more in depth rather than to just scratch the surface of the text. He believed in viewing the Constitution with human dignity in mind. Human dignity is in a sense what the Constitution is composed of. The Founding Fathers did not wish for anything other than the respect of human dignity in this country.
For example, in Ritchie v. People (1895), the Illinois Supreme Court rejected the eight-hour provision from the Law of 1893, because it violated the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving women of freedom of contract, which is derived from the due process clause (A14.1). The decision rooted from the larger political battle occuring at the time- most wealthy businesses and political leaders did not support protective laws - which led to a display of false paternity/equality by the justices. In dismay, Florence Kelley rejected that the Fourteenth Amendment could be used in such a manner, and said, “The measure to guarantee the Negro freedom from oppression has become an insuperable obstacle to the protection of women and children” (W15). In the campaign for protective rights for laborers, the ruling from Ritchie v. People marked a defeat, but not an end. In 1908, Kelley, and the NCL, sought redemption through the case of Muller v. Oregon (case description), and picked an attorney, Louis Brandeis, who “seemed like a champion to fight her battle in court” (W26).
He expanded the power of the Supreme Court by declaring that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that the Supreme Court Justices were the final deciders. In the Marbury vs. Madison case, Marshall wrote "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” John Marshall was clearly in favor of judicial power, and believed that the Supreme Court should have the final say in cases involving an interpretation of the Constitution. While establishing this, he kept the separation of powers in mind, as he wanted equal representation among the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches. In the Marbury vs. Madison, John Marshall declared that the Judicial Branch could not force Madison to deliver the commission.
Prior to the reading of both essays of Supreme Court Justice William Brennan and Attorney General Edwin Meese my personal opinion was to interpret the constitution as best fitting for the current situation, whatever that may be. Post reading that opinion that I held changed. After reading these essays I realized that it is more important to stick as closely to what the framers of the constitution meant as possible. As stated in Meese’s essay, “Any true approach to constitutional interpretation must respect the document in all its parts and be faithful to the Constitution in its entirety.
The text also alluded to previous court cases, such as Marshall vs. Court and the National Back, where Congress was declared to having unconstitutional implementations, that were based on a loose structure. Summary Context and Point of View The Court had
Since the establishment of the United States Supreme Court in 1789 the role and function of the court has varied depending on the need of the country. There are several different schools of thought when it comes to the purpose and the function that the Supreme Court should take, ranging from strictly ruling on constitutional matters up to weighing in on national policy cases. To evaluate what role the court actually takes, one must examine both the institutional function as well as the political function. Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist No. 78 has been considered one of the most influential pieces of work in the field, as it lays the ground work of what he believed was the role of the court.
On the other hand, Marshall ruled the Judiciary Act of 1789 to be “an unconstitutional extension of judiciary power into the realm of the executive” (Marbury v. Madison, history.com). In spite of settling this dispute, ultimately, the Supreme Court elevated and contributed to its power by establishing its right to judicial review of laws made by Congress, that power not implicitly included in the Constitution beforehand (Marbury v. Madison, www.inspireeducators.com). All things considered, the Marbury v. Madison case granted the Supreme Court of the United States (S.C.O.T.U.S.) the power of judicial review, therefore allowing the Court to declare laws passed by Congress to be unconstitutional. This had and still has a tremendous and significant impact on the United States because if not for it, the laws passed could not be declined or conferred further about, or in other words, struck down and reviewed. Our judicial system would be limited.