Bork And Roberts: A Case Study

The above facts and details of appointments serve as great strengths for Greenburg, but there are also weaknesses she failed to touch on and include in this book. Greenburg fails to consider how the same scare-tactic rhetoric used by democratic and liberal senators nearly every time a conservative justice is nominated as well she only glances and summarizes the events of Thomas’ confirmation hearing and the attempted filibuster of Samuel Alito’s nomination. These accounts would have provided more information and context for the book to give a more well-rounded account of these appointments

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

Facts: In 2000, California voters adopted Proposition 22, defining marriage as a relationship only between a man and a woman. The California Supreme Court invalidated Proposition 22 and California began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Proponents of Proposition 8, who opposed same-sex marriage, collected signatures and filed petitions to get Proposition 8 on the ballot. In November 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, "which added language to the California Constitution that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman" (Santoro & Wirth, 2013). Two same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses and were denied, then brought suit under 42 U.S.C.S. ยง 1983, based on the idea that Proposition 8 violated equal protection. The State of California refused to argue in favor of Proposition 8 and the original proponents of Proposition 8 sought to defend the law. In May of 2009, Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional by a California District Court, which held that it violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision. The case then came before the Supreme Court. However, the State of California is not defending Proposition 8; instead, a mix of private parties is defending the law. This has led to questions about standing as well as the constitutional issues in the case.

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

Following the termination of the Colorado State University women’s varsity softball team on June 1, 1992; plaintiffs sought reinstatement on the basis of a Title IX violation ("Roberts v. Colorado State University, 814 F. Supp. 1507 (D. Colo. 1993) :: Justia," 1993). The girls found terminating their sports team to be unjust. The plaintiffs argued financial difficulties and lack of participation and support for the boy’s baseball team did not warrant termination of the softball program. They also argued getting recruited to play Division I level softball afforded them a better chance at improving their future. Most girls had a substantial amount of scholarship money that helped them afford college ("Roberts v. Colorado State University, 814

Case Summary: Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) involved a white Michigan resident named Barbara Grutter and the University of Michigan Law School. Grutter was frustrated by her rejection from the Law School, claiming that the University’s decision was due to a discriminatory admission policy which sought to enroll greater amounts of underrepresented minority students. Grutter believed that white candidates possessed a disadvantage due to this policy and she sued the university. According to Grutter, race was the “predominate factor” in selecting applicants instead of academics. She argued that the policy was unconstitutional and that it violated her 14th Amendment rights.

The Fourth Amendment protects the police from gaining exorbitant power. However, in Florida v. Bostick and Ohio v. Robinette, the Supreme Court granted the police disproportionate power by granting them the right to conduct warrantless seizures and searches without reason. The rulings of both cases were in emulation of the Fourth Amendment rights.

My area of interest is behavior analysis but for the purpose of this discussion I chose this case.

Summary In Mark Tushnet’s book “A Court Divided,” Tushnet illustrates how the Supreme Court’s ideals have changed with every new president, cultural movement and Death of a fellow court member. We can see the change as Goldwater leads into Regan, and so on with every republican president up to present day. The Court’s Republican majority doesn't always agree on every issue, such as on issues like abortion or homosexual rights, the opinions were split between the harsher, older Republicans, and the softer, younger Republicans.

In the 1960’s Bork started to sell a new brand of legal conservatism he called it “original intent” which means that judges should go no further in interpreting the constitution than the words of the founding document. Bork started off as the solicitor general for President Nixon in 1973 and this was during the Watergate scandal. President Nixon gave an order to his attorney general to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, but both the attorney general and deputy attorney general refused. Cox was requesting the tapes from Nixon’s conversations in the oval office.

According to police reports, Mr. Jonathan Hartshorn was involved in a single vehicle non-injury accident when the vehicle he was operating rear ended another vehicle in the drive thru lane at 1212 S Rock Rd. Officers were called to the accident and made contact with Mr. Hartshorn, who had moved to 1219 S Rock Rd. Officer Reser made contact with Mr. Hartshorn and detected the odor of an alcoholic beverage on Mr. Hartshorn. Mr. Hartshorn also had slurred speech. Officer Reser had Mr. Hartshorn perform the sobriety tests, which he failed. Mr. Hartshorn submitted to a breath test which showed a BAC of

In case 2 of 15, the plaintiff, Edward Roberts, alleged discrimination based on color. This allegation falls under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VII. “Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin” (Mello, J. A. 2015). The courts will have to decide whether the defendant, the trucking company, discriminated against Mr. Roberts based on his color. As presiding judge in the case, I would rule on Mr. Roberts’ behalf. The facts of the cases state Mr. Roberts came “in person on March 31, 2005” to apply, which clearly states his color was observed as he put in the application. Mr. Roberts experience was sufficient because he listed 22 months of prior experience as a road driver.

On March 16, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to take Associate Justice Scalia’s seat. The Chicago native graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School and worked as a federal prosecutor for the U.S. Department of Justice. He played the lead role in the investigation and prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombers. Mr. Garland is not as conservative as former Associate Justice Scalia, he is more of a moderate. Also Mr. Scalia was well known for his argumentative style. This was illustrated quite clearly in his frequent and angry dissents of his colleague’s majority opinion. Conversely Mr. Garland works to unite and mold opinions to be unanimous. In his nineteen years on the United States Court of Appeals, he has only penned sixteen dissents. A former law clerk for Mr. Garland stated “From an early point in his tenure in the D.C. Circuit, Judge Garland has demonstrated an uncommon ability to identify common ground among his fellow judges, that he manages to do so without in any way sacrificing his core judicial principles is truly remarkable”

They allude to the unanimous 9-0 decisions the Supreme Court has made as a strong indication that the court remains neutral. Chief Justice Roberts also recently stated at a Boston law school: “We don’t work as Democrats or Republicans” (Savage, 2016, p. 1). Moreover, Justice Scalia, when defending his conservative vote in a 5-4 ruling, claimed: “’I prefer not to take part in the assembling of an apparent but specious unanimity’” (Kuhn, 2014, p. 3). However, decisions become unanimous only when the ideological stakes are not large enough. As for extremely controversial topics, nearly every single recent 5-4 decision has been divided perfectly along ideological lines. The conservative majority, praised by Republicans, has unbelievably struck down major parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, upheld an individual’s right to own guns, and has allowed unlimited corporate spending in campaigns (Kuhn, 2014). These types of decisions have caused the divided Supreme Court that we have today. Looking at a more psychological and scientific perspective on this overall issue, an investigation by Anna Harvey and Michael J. Woodruff of the New York University found that the direction of decision and vote of the Supreme Court is frequently contaminated by confirmation bias; justices seeking out facts and reasoning that

I am interested in attending the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University due to the plethora of opportunities that are offered to their law students. I believe that these opportunities are encapsulated by the Scalia Law Advantage, as the law school’s proximity to northern Virginia and Washington, D.C. grant access to an incomparable amount of career opportunities and high-caliber faculty. These features are especially of interest to me as I believe that gaining practical experience in the government, a private law firm, or a non-governmental organization would be integral in developing a legal career. In addition to the exceptional location and professional opportunities, Mason Law’s smaller community and 1:11.8 teacher to student