Carrubb Article Analysis

An underlying conflict within the Supreme Court was partially abstained as Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined the system in 1954 and 1993. Although their oath of office resembles a major breakthrough in law, there is still no doubt that the conflict of ethnic and gender diversity and the need for diverse, experienced members within the Supreme Court is a problem that should be addressed by society within the next few years. From past events, such as Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and consistently throughout history, it is perceived that problems in our justice system are addressed when people come together as a society in resistance in want for change. Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s

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.

Legal cases are generally decided upon when a judge applies the law to the facts of the case; however, the Constitution is ambiguous which means it can be comprehended differently. The way the Constitution is translated in today 's society and applied to modern laws is a responsibility that the Supreme Court justices must uptake. Many factors are believed to play a role in how exactly justices finalize and make their decision, which is why political sciences created three different models of judicial decision making. The legal model, attitudinal model, and strategic model help us grasp a better understanding of what may influence the decision making process. As stated earlier, some decisions are based on the law being applied to the facts, and this decision process is explained in the legal model. The legal model also expresses how justices, in addition to using facts and the law, can use information from previous and almost equivalent cases helping them determine their decisions. Unlike the legal model, the attitudinal model explains how justice’s policy preferences can influence their decision. This model shows how legal text of the Constitution could possibly be ignored, and instead the justices’ own opinions, just like politicians, would guide them through the decision making process. According to Unit 8 Video Engager, it is believed that the justices may take this approach due to the fact that they are entitled to a

The decisions of justices have "altered behavior of political and governmental officials as well as a man walking down the street"(Miller 4). To understand

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

Our American judiciary branch of the federal government has contributed and molded our American beliefs in this great nation. This branch of government is respected because of the code of conduct that the judges, no matter how conservative or liberal. The language of the court as well as the uniform of the cloaks that judges wear has most probably contributed towards this widespread respect. Throughout the history of the United States, I noticed a pattern of “cause and effect” that our judiciary branch had practiced. I noticed that the judicial branch usually restrain themselves from involving in critical civil policy, but will be active when the time comes when the general public, in which the case is decided, feels a change is needed. We

The attitudinal model states that Supreme Court justices make their determinations exclusively based on their own beliefs; thus the term "attitudinal" which means based on their own attitude toward a specific issue. (video) The strengths and weaknesses of the attitudinal model depends on where the various justices lie on the conservative-liberal spectrum and if it coincides with your beliefs. If you are conservative, then it is a strength when justices vote following conservative values and a weakness if justices vote along liberal lines and vice-versa, again depending on your preferences. Supreme Court justices serve for life and there has never been a case when a justice has been impeached, so applying their own beliefs to their decision making is very likely done without consequences, which is also a weakness of the attitudinal model. (video) It is an extreme weakness to have justices who serve and believe that their own ideology prevails over the actual

In the article, “A Judge Speaks Out,” Haddon Lee Sarokin discussed how the judiciary system works within the United States Court of Appels. In the article Sarokin expressed how America’s democracy faces problems of inequality and political withdrawal. Throughout the article, Sarokin implies that many decisions made by the judges are not necessarily decisions that would be made based off the Constitution as it should be, but based off the judges giving into the majorities opinions and desires. Sarokin expressed how it takes resilience and loyalty to follow the Constitution and to make decisions that are best for society, while sticking to the principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and not being influenced by others or one’s own desires.

A judge is an interpreter of the law and an arbitrator between the rights of the people in relation to the law. When it comes to the appointment of Supreme Court justices the president and the people look for those who will use the Constitution as a tool to interpret the law. The president looks for a person who fully understands the ins and outs of the law and how it should be applied. The power of judicial review is entrusted in the hands of those that are capable of putting aside their personal beliefs to define the law. When defining the Constitution there

Many leading Supreme Court observers believe that adding yet another liberal justice to the court would lead to major changes in the court’s jurisprudence. Today, this impact the two different visions would have on everyday Americans. The Supreme Court plays a very important role in our constitutional system of government and it sets appropriate limits on democratic government by ensuring that popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm and/or take undue advantage of unpopular minorities. As a recent New York Times article put it, adding another liberal to the Supreme Court “would be the most consequential ideological shift on the court … creating a liberal majority that would almost certainly reshape American law and American life. It will impact all of

The role of politics in the Supreme Court became clear when the Senate rejected President Reagan’s Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork in 1987. Many people consider Bork one of the most qualified Supreme Court nominees ever, but his extremely conservative views on civil rights, abortion, and gender equality, among other issues, led to his 58-42 defeat in the Senate. The politicization of the Supreme Court is a widely-debated topic that often begins with the Justices themselves and the role of ideology. Some scholars argue that politics’ role in Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominees overshadows a nominee’s judicial philosophy and qualifications. A particular policy stance can impact the way the Senate and the

Supreme Court justices are elected through a political process; they have their own personal view, which would affect their decision-making. This is why some scholars assert that the justices; political preferences play a critical role in their decisions in many cases. For example, the justices appointed by conservative presidents tend to have conservative views, while those appointed by liberal presidents have the opposite view.

There are many justices in Supreme Court. The judgement of the Justices is how the court voices their opinions.

Bailey, Kamoie, and Maltzma’s article answers the question to whether Solicitors General (S.G.) influence Supreme Court justices to behave differently than they would like. The article argues that unlike some studies that assert that S.G.’s influence the justices decisions, the reality is somewhat contradictory. They claim that Justices are more sympathetic to motions from the S.G. when both the justice and S.G. are “ideologically proximate” or when the Solicitors General’s motion is conflicting to his own ideological tendency. According to them, “justices will find a solicitor general’s information more credible when the solicitor general and the justice are ideologically congruent or when the signal from the S.G. is ideologically counter to his typical policy views”. (p 72) That means justices are sympathetic to the SG’s signals under two circumstances: when their ideology is close to the S.G.’s ideology or when the S.G. files a motion that opposes his own ideological tendency.

The appointment and confirmation of Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States involves several steps set forth by the United States Constitution, which have been further refined and developed by decades of tradition (Supreme Court, 2011). Justices are appointed by the President of the United States, and must be confirmed by the United States Senate (Welch, 2014). This is done following a series of hearings in which both the nominee and other witnesses make statements and answer questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The process is very political and one thing I see to fix the process is the conformations. It is time to create a more meaningful confirmation process. It is now normal that at their confirmation hearings, nominees