Khalil Franklin: Response paper; Murphy, Marshaling the Court: the leadership and bargaining, and the judicial process. Decision-making power of individual justices is shared among them. Given the authority of each individual justice, one must persuade only four of his colleagues, but also to sign on to the majority opinion [see page 2]. To measure political leadership, the role of the chief justice can be studied on the basis of political leadership. Personality spectrum. 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 …show more content…
The CJ is present in open Court and is especially important in conference [see page 643] Since CJ gives his view first, he may withdraw the court from a case of less importance, and focus attention toward a case that is more likely to cause disagreement [see page 643]. During OA, if the CJ notices tension among the justices he has ability to exercise authority and lower tensions (stop debate or appeal to hurt …show more content…
The article explains Stone allowed angered argument to continue and even would join in the altercation. Marshal argues, in his five years as CJ, Stone altered the authoritative expectation of the position in that he erased the dominate structure and strategies established by predecessors. However, this may not be true… the other members of the Court are themselves factors that contribute to both functions. There are instances in which Hughes, a stubborn intellect, would change his mind his brethren expressed their interpretations (Hill v. Wallace), at first he signed on to the interpretation of the statute being constitutional, and later changed his interpretation and his vote. To bargain: Justices’ have votes and concurrences as an option in the bargaining process [see page 657], with this, if a party reneges on the bargain the justice has his authority given to him in his position as a sanction (more often than not, the justices uses his dissenting or concurring opinion as an option) [see page 657; letter sent to Frankfurter from
CONTRASTING OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICES HARLAN F STONE AND CHARLES EVAN HUGHES Rish Padore US History II Honors: Ms. Robinson April 3, 2015 During the 1900’s, many of the Supreme Court decisions were split and had different outcomes. Many of these decisions were crucial in the way that they affected the lives of the people. During this time, the court was very fickle and changed its overall mood numerous times. These two courts were divided into two sectors, Liberals and Conservatives. These two parts consequently pertained to their social parties, Democratic and Republican.
In the essay Federal No. 78 deals with the proposed structure of federal courts, their powers and jurisdiction, the method of appointing judges, and related matters. Alexander Hamilton begins in explaining his views on the independence on judge and evaluates the doctrine of the judicial review. Resulting in the Court believing that the Supreme Court violated part of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton then evaluates the question of whether the Supreme Court should be able to declare acts of Congress null and void. Hamilton focuses on his three main points of the judicial department. First: the mode of appointing judges.
Chapter 1 Thesis: The decisions that the supreme court makes helps define the United States, so to help gain political advantage the president uses thought and strategy when appointing. Evidence pg 14
There are also no juries or witnesses and it involves only lawyers from both sides that argue the law and answer any questions the judges may have. There are seven judges at this level or one Chief Justice and six judges on the panel. The Chief Justice is elected by the court?s sitting judges and is elected a two-year term. Cases can be appealed to the Supreme Court that were heard in the Circuit Courts or the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court can override those courts decisions. The Supreme Court?s role is to guarantee a firm and reasonable judicial system and is the final arbitrator in disagreements that involve the state?s constitution and laws.
Marbury v Madison The case of Marbury v. Madison will always be considered one of the most important cases ever decide by the Supreme Court. The Court’s ruling has been discussed and examined by many law scholars throughout the world. This essay summarizes the case and explains the implications of it regarding the powers of the Judicial Branch.
Earl Warren Many chief justices have worked on popular cases over the years. In particular I am going to be talking about Earl Warren; his early life, he was a past chief justice, why he chose what he did and the three major cases he worked on throughout his life. All of these affected our lives in one way or another. The three cases Earl Warren worked on were Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda v. Arizona, and Benton v. Maryland.
According to a poll conducted by Gallup, in just the past two decades, the percentage of people who approve of the way the Supreme Court conducts its job has declined from 62% to 40% (Supreme Court). The percentage of people who disapprove has increased from 29% to 58%. It is clear that many Americans today do not approve of the Supreme Court and its Justices. The changes in these percentages can be attributed to the widespread concern that Justices are not impartial. However, it is a fact that bias is within all of us, and we can not only blame the Justices.
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.
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
This impacts court outcomes majorly. Along with the lengthy process of getting hired, most serve a lifetime appointment. Justices can work until death or are told otherwise. Due to this fact, the court members are very isolated from public opinion. This allows them to “apply the law with only justice in mind, and not electoral and or political concerns.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
This consists of the Governor General acting on the advice of the Prime Minister for judges of the Supreme Court of Canada and chief and associate chief justices in the provinces; and on the advice of the Minister of Justice for all other superior court judges. (Justice.gc.ca,