Segal And Spaeth's Argument Analysis

In regards to the detailed studies of both Segal and Spaeth, and Brenan and Stier, valid points had been made for both sides of the argument. The question posed is rather or not stare decisis still exist in the courts rulings today. Segal and Spaeth analyze the rulings of dissenting judges of landmark cases since the start of the Warren Court while excluding cases with unanimous decisions and cases without progeny within the legal period. The areas of which they dissected and constructed the particular datasets for analyzing is superb as it specifically narrows down the specific information there looking for within their results. The findings from there assessments concluded that precedent did not play a overwhelming role in the sub sequential

In today’s society I still believe that precedent plays a huge role for courts decisions as it sets the framework and guidelines for the deliberating process of certain cases and decisions. Yet unlike in the past in which precedent reigned superior amongst all other factors in court decisions it no longer settles cases by itself. For this reason I agree more with the finding and conclusion of Segal and Spaeth who both acknowledge the idea that precedent still has a role in the court but it does not carry the same legitimacy in court ruling as it once did in the past. In contemporary society it has become somewhat clear that stare decisis is starting to decline in popularity in landmark rulings suck as the same sex marriage ruling. What was once considered state judgments and excluded from federal intrusion has now become federally mandate law upheld by new decisions which contradict ruling of the past which only legally recognized marriage between opposite gender couples. Precedent has not completely been thrown out the books but it is gradually losing relevancy amongst contemporary court rulings which rely heavily on the use of contemporary opinions as opposed to legal

Even with certain restrictions and checks of power the president still maintain some significant areas of power over congress such the ability to veto legislation passed by congress. This ability grants the president a significant amount of power over the legislative process in the U.S as ultimately he is able to set the agenda of the country’s political schedule, and determine the direction of the country’s political schedule. Along with the ability to enact vetoes without the interference of a hostile congress uncooperative congress. The president also posses the ability to set the agenda for what legislation to recommend to congress and to what priority level each recommendation should be given. This power does come with its limits though as most situations do not give the president the ultimate authority to force congress to address his proposal and he must instead convince congress to address his issue with priority. With this immense amount of power comes extreme limitations which can sometimes severely hamper the effectives of a presidential term. Unlike the misconstrued widely held belief of most Americans the President is not able to single handily reshape the economy, engage in military conflicts, or dictate the pace of legislature. In terms of passing new legislature or economic reform the president