Supreme Court Vs Circuit Court

In order to uphold the constitution, the Supreme Court must always aim to balance power among the branches of government and not overstep boundaries in exercising its own power. For this reason, the debate over handling political questions in the courtroom

This statement from the passage shows that the Supreme Court is depended on to choose what’s right and what’s wrong for us. Secondly, I believe that the Supreme Court is given too much power because the Judicial branch, which includes the Supreme Court, is envisioned as superior than the others. In

Thesis: “that judges, if they act rationally, must weigh all the alternatives” [see page 641]. Discussion- analysis of strategies and tactics. Assumptions made by the author; (1) historical role of a free society, has been deeply embedded in the American judiciary, (2) the

SCOTUS is a far cry from Alexander Hamilton’s claim in The Federalist #78 that the judiciary “will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because, the judiciary lacked the powers of the purse and of the sword, it had neither force nor will, but merely judgment.

At its inception, the Supreme Court was a vague idea created by tired delegates at the Constitutional Convention. Today, the judiciary is arguably the strongest branch in government. The person responsible for the inception of such a strong judicial branch is John Marshall. With his decisions in the Supreme Court, John Marshall used his Constitutional interpretation to grant powerful jurisdiction over the federal government, and to ensure a republic of the people rather than being in complete control of rich white men for the entirety of America. These decisions led Marshall to shape the Supreme Court by his granting of power to match the other branches of government to the modern age.

What sets the judicial branch apart from the others is the inability to execute the laws and carry out their own decisions made in the high court. Just as it is the executives place to enforce the laws and the legislation to construct laws, it is the responsibility of the courts to determine if the Constitution has been

Upon the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal justice, McConnell saw an opportunity to put in another conservative justice, even though it was closer to the election. This hypocrisy from the Republican party is a political move for them to gain more power across the government. The Constitution does not state the number of SCOTUS justices there can be. If the President wanted, he could nominate dozens of liberal justices and have most of the Senate confirm them so that their political party could be benefited. SCOTUS was never meant to be politicized, and if it continues to be, this will create massive swings on what the law is for our country.

Ultimately, the judicial branch has to go back to what the founding fathers intended for the court’s purpose and to use the power accordingly. To maintain the strength of the branch, the courts must think about what is constitutionally right. Their decisions should reflect the amendments as well. “Judicial power plays an important role in the rule of law, even while it comes frequently into tension with norms of democratic rule” (Friedman & Delaney, 2011, p. 57, para. 1). This is the only way that citizens will feel like their rights are truly protected.

Maryland remains as one of the United States Supreme Court’s most important decisions and was the very first case in which the Court applied the Necessary and Proper Clause. By establishing the doctrine of implied powers, this decision helped eliminate the need for many amendments that attempted to expand congressional powers. It also enhanced the importance of explicit restraints on congressional powers such as those found in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (McCulloch v. Maryland, 2014). The case of McCulloch v. Maryland presented the Court with two questions: Did Congress have the authority to incorporate a bank, and was it constitutional to impose a state tax upon such a bank? The answer to the first question, according to Chief Justice Marshall, was yes and to the second was no.

In many ways the Supreme Court acts as both a moral and legal mediator for the nation. Supreme Court decisions have the potential to have a tremendous impact on the lives of Americans. Such as the Glossip v. Gross case, Obergefell v. Hodges case and lastly Elonis v. United States case. However, some of these decisions have transformed American society and influenced people’s lives today.

This momentous change is what sets the scene for the developments that were to come. In two highly influential cases, McCulloch vs. the State of Maryland, and Gibbons vs. Ogden, the Supreme Court, under the guidance of Marshall, ruled that the federal judiciary can reverse the decisions made by state courts. These changes represent the groundwork for the US Supreme Court and continue to be reflected in today’s society. In 1821, John Marshall’s amends to the system of the law continued as, in Cohens vs. Virginia, the ruling assisted in establishing the parameters for conflicting local and state laws. John Marshall continued proudly serving on the Supreme Court until his death on July 6th, 1835.

Alex Frost Values: Law & Society 9/23/2014 The Hollow Hope Introduction and Chapter 1 Gerald Rosenberg begins his book by posing the questions he will attempt to answer for the reader throughout the rest of the text: Under what conditions do courts produce political and social change? And how effective have the courts been in producing social change under such past decisions as Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education? He then works to define some of the principles and view points 'currently' held about the US Supreme court system.

Courts prove unsuccessful in achieving social change due to the constraints on the court’s power. Rosenburg’s assessment that courts are “an institution that is structurally challenged” demonstrates the Constrained Court view. In this view, the Court’s lack of judicial independence, inability to implement policies, and the limited nature of constitutional rights inhibit courts from producing real social reform. For activists to bring a claim to court, they must frame their goal as a right guaranteed by the constitution, leading to the courts hearing less cases (Rosenburg 11). The nature of the three branches also creates a system of checks and balances in which Congress or the executive branch can reverse a controversial decision, rendering the Court’s impact void.

Hana Kim Professor Yvonne Wollenberg Law and Politics 106 7 October 2015 Title In the United States government, there are three branches called the legislative, executive, and judicial branch. Out of these three, the judicial branch is the most powerful. The judicial branch is made up of the Supreme Court, the court with the most power in the country, and other federal courts that are lower in the system; the purpose of this branch is to look over laws and make sure they are constitutional and reasonable.

Judicial selection is an intriguing topic as there are multiple ways that judges take their seat on the bench. The United States Constitution spells out how federal judges are selected and leaves it up to the individual states to establish their means for selecting judges. In federal courts, judges are appointed and it varies between appointment and election for state courts. The purpose of this paper is to examine the differences between appointments and elections (as well as the multiple types of elections) and to give an opinion as to which is the better alternative. Federal judges are appointed by the President of the United States and are confirmed on the advice and consent of the United States Senate.