Scalia Originalism

The notion of a living Constitution has greatly developed the American system. It has brought innovative perspectives on how the courts should be responding to constitutional situations. As well, it creates a basis for society to grow through means of acceptance and progressive viewpoints. The constitution should not be used to fit policy outcomes, and that would be the intent originalists seem to push for. Furthermore, there are two distinct reasons why the argument for the living constitution is stronger then the argument for the original intent.

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.

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.

Ruther Bader Ginsburg “looked for cases where laws reflecting, gender stereotypes actually penalized men, not women.” (Tobin 82) As a result, out of all of cases she argued, Ruther Bader Ginsburg won five out of six cases. These cases which normally benefitted men, led to the downfall of many more laws that penalized women.” (Tobin 82) Ruther Bader Ginsburg also like topics involving race. In the particular case Grutter she changed her habits.

In William Brennan’s view on the American Constitution he focused on human dignity to determine his interpretation. As he states in his essay, “But we are an aspiring people, a people with faith in progress. Our amended Constitution is the lodestar for our aspirations. Like every text worth reading, it is not crystalline.” (Brennan).

It is quite difficult to ascribe modern meaning to ancient texts. One could argue that there is no greater folly. The Constitution has been the guiding document of this country since its ratification over two hundred and thirty years ago, and for all of its scruples, is still the most important political document ever written. Thus, it is the role of several of our most hallowed institutions to ascribe modern meanings to ancient texts. The main visionary behind the Constitution, James Madison, would not understand our world today.

ome may argue that Ellis is wrong, and that there is continuity between the American Revolution of 1776 and the Constitution. They may argue that the founding fathers did in fact, “bring forth a new nation” in 1776 which did not change much when the Constitution was ratified. This nation of sorts may be characterized by its disjointedness, and its unity in its desire to stay that way. As Ellis pointed out in the beginning of his book, the states “regarded themselves as mini-nations of their own.” This would be supported by the fact that in the last two Supreme Court cases detailed above, there was serious opposition from people who saw the Court’s decision as an encroachment on state’s rights.

Travis Maguire JCC US History Marshall Court Project Essay November 6, 2017 Chief John Marshall of the United States Supreme Court had a large impact on American history. His influence on the United States established the great power that the Supreme Court held for the future.

Textualism, as Antonin Scalia describes it, is inconsistent in its nature. While he first claims that a good textualist would never interpret the law with the legislator’s intent in mind, Scalia later violates his own convictions by allowing for corrections of Scrivener’s errors. In principle, correcting Scrivener’s errors requires the judge to think about what the original writer meant to say with the statute, not the literal meaning of the text. This may mean adding a single additional word to the statute, but something as deceptively simple as one word could have drastic effects on the meaning of the law. Therefore, Scalia cannot claim to account for Scrivener’s errors while also chastising methods of interpretation that consider what the

John Marshall had a significant impact on strengthening the national government during his term as Chief Justice from 1800-1830. Marshall achieved this goal by strengthening the power of the Supreme Court in three main court cases. In Marbury v. Madison Marshall established the practice of judicial review, then in McCulloch v. Maryland he weakened the central government and Gibbons v. Ogden provided the federal government with the ability to regulate interstate commerce. Marbury v. Madison (1803) was a court case that began the practice of judicial review. This case started because the night before President John Adams term ended, he appointed 42 justices of the peace.

The Supreme Court priorities from the time period of 1790 to 1865 were establishing the Judiciary Act of 1789, which was instrumental in founding the Federal Court System. The framers believed that establishing a National Judiciary was an urgent and important task. After the installation of Chief Justice John Marshall who “used his dominance to strengthen the court 's position and advance the policies he favored” (Baum 20). However, in the decision of the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803 was an example of the power he exuded “in which the Court struck down a Federal statute for the first time” (Baum 20). This created some internal conflict between Marshall and President Thomas Jefferson, however Marshall was able to diffuse this with

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.

When people think of how government works, unless they’ve taken a government class, they usually think of Congress making laws and the President doing pretty much everything else. No one pays much attention to the Supreme Court unless there is a landmark case or something else to grab the news — like the recent death of Justice Antonin Scalia. But the Supreme Court does much more than you’d think regarding keeping the political machine running like a well-oiled … machine. Through not only interpretation of the law, but also judicial activism, the Supreme Court shows it can have as much influence over the laws of the land as either of the other branches of the federal government. In this paper, I will analyze the decision-making methods of the Court using the cases of Gideon v. Wainwright and Betts v. Brady.

The Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics video titled “Key Constitutional Concepts” explores the history of the creation of the United States Constitution in addition to key concepts crucial to the document. Two central themes explored in the video include the protection of personal rights and importance of checks and balances. The video strives to explain these concepts through Supreme Court cases Gideon v. Wainwright and Youngstown v. Sawyer. To begin, the video retraces the steps leading up to the Constitutional Convention in Virginia in 1787. It opens by explaining the conflict that led to the Revolutionary War and the fragility of the new nation.

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