Analysis Of Antonin Scalia 's The Court Of The Supreme Court

The role of the Judicial Branch of the United States has been the most dynamic throughout the Nation’s history. By adopting the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the Supreme Court established its position as being arguably the most powerful branch of Federal Government. However, this also made the Judiciary’s role the most controversial. Should the Court be required to interpret the constitution strictly through the language it contains? Does the Court have the right to overturn morals legislation? Through analyzing court cases like Lawrence v. Texas, one can gain insight on the role of the Supreme Court and how it fits within the confines of the United States Government.

The views of Scalia and Brennan of our common law judicial system are very oppositional. Justice Brennan is what is considered a non-orginalist and Scalia would be a considered the opposite which is, an orginalist. Both of them agree that interpreting the constitution is so crucial to our democratic system and to making laws. However, Scalia believes that judges shouldn’t have the power to interpret the constitution into common laws because it allows for too much bias in our court system. He believes it gives the courts too much power and that they don’t have the historical knowledge base to interpret the original intent of constitution properly. Scalia thinks that this job of interpretation of important amendments would be better left to historians then to lawyers. He does not think that judges should be allowed to create laws because they don’t know how to interpret the original intent of the constitution. Justice Brennan believes that the interpretation of the constitution into common law is for a federal judge, obligatory. And that it is the job of the judges to look at the cases presented to them and use their best unbiased judgment to interpret what outcome would be best for the public good. Justice Brennan says himself that when the justices interpret the constitution they don’t speak for themselves, they speak for the public. Scalia and Brennan basically disagree on how the text should be read and about what should be considered legitimate interpretation. There

Based on the research of Justice Alito, he was appointed by former president Gorge W. Bush as one of the Supreme Court Justices on January 31, 2006 and is currently a Republican Party federal justice. His approaches to things are very unpredictable and distinctive from what he is viewed as. However, his conservative standpoint is still a part of his image. This paper will include: the background of the justice, the judicial philosophy he approaches, and his opinion on a dispute.

During his opening statement, Scalia employs rhetorical questions in order to elucidate that Americans’ lack of knowledge of the government forces judges to firmly abide by the United States’ unparalleled Constitution. He postulates, “How many of you have read the Federalist Papers?” The reality that “never more than about 5%” of his audience, who are “interested in the law,” has delved deep into the document portrays them as ignorant. With this concern, Scalia expounds upon his originalist ideals and encourages rivaling judges to alter their opinions of a flexible Constitution. Scalia credits his argument through the Framers who illustrated the significance of the Constitution in the Federalist Papers. Due to the fact that Americans are incapable of thoroughly interpreting the government, he attests that judges must abide by the precise words of the Constitution. Scalia advises his audience to

Jan Greenburg is a Legal Communicator for the ABC news. In this book she tells explains about nine different interviews she has had with high political leaders. The leaders range from Justices to the white house. This book basically takes the outside and inside view of how the court has changed over time. Court has changed over time with mainly communal problems such as: faith, ethnicity and illegal processes. Jan talks about how some of the court has basically used itself to gain power through these communal problems. This is really useful when it comes down to it, because it lets the reader realize that the court does not always give proper justice. There are numerous conflicts in the Supreme Court. People always want power, and some

The Constitution of the United States is a complex idea, adopted at a fragile time in American history and is the framework for our government systems. There are different ways to view this document and different ways to interpret it, which can cause debate over the proper and correct way to go about interpretation. Justice Antonin Scalia and former Justice William Brennan, are two intellectuals with different methods and ideas about the correct way to interpret and enforce the Constitution. To understand how the Constitution works for the people of America, one must first understand about the Justices of the Supreme Court who have the power of enforcing the rules and regulations of Americas most prized document.

The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.

It has been presented to the Supreme Court of the United States of America that Mr. Dred Scott pleas for freedom from his slave master, Mr. Sanford. Initially Mr. Scott was owned by Dr. Emerson until Mr. Emerson’s death when Scott was sold to Mr. Sanford. Under intense scrutiny and discernment it has been decided by the Supreme Court that Mr. Dred Scott has the inalienable right to be a free citizen of the United States of America. Scott is a slave, owned by Mr. and Mrs. John Emerson since 1836. Scott currently resides in St. Louis, Missouri as of 1830. Mr. Dred Scott has presided residence in both Illinois and Wisconsin Territory, accompanied by his slaveholder. The Illinois and Wisconsin Territories are free, meaning that no man nor woman can be private property of another. Because of this, Mr. Emerson has no control nor jurisdiction over Scott. Mr. Scott resided in free territory for several years, therefore, he must leave this courtroom as a free man. Although slavery is not abolished in the South, it is abolished in both of the territories that Scott visited during his involvement with Mr. Emerson, making it his right to be free. It is of the slaveholder’s duty to not enter the territories of Illinois and Wisconsin expecting his slave to maintain in his possession. The responsibility is left on Mr. Emerson and it is due to his ignorance that his slave will gain freedom today. Slavery is prohibited in both territories, making it unreasonable that a man should remain a

The authority of judicial review recognized by Marbury has allowed the court to result revolutionary alteration in our sympathetic of constitutional supplies. This power hasn’t unpredictably, haggard both censure and praise over the court’s antiquity, but it has never been a supremacy totally beyond the jurisdiction of the other divisions of government. Since the President’s authority to appoint and the Senate’s authority to approve Supreme Court Justices to the infrequent great efforts of constitutional alteration, the court remains resolutely entrenched in our Constitution’s system of checks and balances. Meanwhile judicial review has certified that the Supreme Court’s justices, once established, have adequate power to apply their individuality from the political divisions and apply constitutional bounds on their powers. The Court’s power in constitutional clarification rests in part on general

Although the Founders accepted slavery within their own lives, they worked for gradual emancipation for the betterment of the people. One Founder in particular, George Washington, turned to manumission as a solution. He fought in the revolution and believed that slavery was wrong. Once his wife, Martha, passed away he freed all of the slaves. Not only did he release them, but he also refused to buy any more to make a point of disproval toward the concept of slavery. Other states were making political advancements to accommodate emancipation. West points out that, “Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina changed their laws to make it easier for owners to emancipate slaves.” (Vindicating the Founders 11). The Founders argued that if

United States judge Irving R. Kaufman once said, “The judicial system is the most expensive machine ever invented for finding out what happened and what to do about it.” Over the course of the United States, the Supreme Court has decided issues which have a great impact on future generations. The leader of this court needs to have intricate understanding of the United State Constitution and judicial system. By holding many different roles in the judicial process,

In 1803, the Supreme Court’s Marbury v. Madison decision would forever alter the political framework of the United States. Resulting in the creation of judicial review—the power to determine if a piece of legislation is constitutional, that is, whether or not it infringes on the provisions of existing law —the Marbury v. Madison decision arguably made the judicial branch the most powerful division of the federal government. Today, judicial review is a fundamental part of American government, standing as a testament of the significance of the historical decision. By first analyzing the political history of the famous case and then by predicting its lasting political consequences, one will find that Marbury v. Madison secured a balance of power in American government that is integral to maintaining the ideologies of checks and balances and civil liberties. Likewise, political scholars will find that the judicial branch of government bears the greatest political responsibility, ultimately having the most influential power in the federal government. As a political arbitrator, the Supreme Court takes its place as the ultimate guardian of American democratic values; it supports the inimitable role of safeguarding American society from the ill will of the majority and also from the ill judgements of its sister branches.

Scalia explains his dissenting opinion to the overturning of Lawrence v. Texas by comparing the case to Roe v. Wade in three areas. He looks at stare decisis, fundamental rights, and legal moralism.

The Brethren, co-authored by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong, is an in-depth documentary of the United States Supreme Court from 1969 to 1975, under the leadership of Warren Burger. The book attempts to present the reader with what "really" goes on in the Supreme Court. It describes the conferences, the personality of justices, and how justice's feel toward each other, items which are generally hidden from the public. This book is comparable to a lengthy newspaper article. Written more as a source of information than of entertainment, The Brethren is the brutal truth, but not boring. The storytelling is clearly slanted against the Burger court but the overall quality of the work

We believe what we are told and understand as far as the eye can see. The Supreme Court Volume 3 was beyond insightful. It introduced a deeper aspect of the Supreme Court, exactly how the cogs turns, changes are made and the process they go through. Not every case makes it to the top of the charts, the Supreme court. Very few cases make it to the Supreme Court, only hears between 100 and 150 cases a year. They rest for a good portion of the year, but from October to April the Supreme Court is busy hearing cases.