Currents Events Journal On The Supreme Court Essay

Abstract — Religious influence on judiciary, especially when it comes to Supreme Court Justices, is a complicated issue, and it has been controversial in U.S.. Talking about judgement for the influence, it’s not all-inclusive by only dividing them into liberals and conservatives, instead, a comprehensive approach is to focus on specific cases.

One Supreme Court member that stands out from the rest would have to be John Marshall. There is no doubt about this because he made the Supreme Court a co-equal branch of government. This means that it was an equal branch to the legislative and the executive. He became a Supreme Court Justice in 1801 and was appointed by John Adams. While holding his position he set three major goals that set precedents and made him the most significant Supreme Court Justice ever. Marshall strengthened the national government, weakened the state government, and strengthened the conditions for business and stabilized the economy. Before John Marshall was the Supreme Court Justice, there were attempts to balance the Court which had failed. His decisions

The current Supreme Court membership is comprised of nine Supreme Court Justices. One of which is the Chief Justice and the other eight are the Associate Justices. The Justices are Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., and Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr.

The Federal Court System is one of the most essential and significant functions to help settle a matter. Much work is involved in the application of a body of rules and principals of rulings. The path the Federal Courts have to take in order to be heard by the Supreme Court is a lengthy process. Given millions of disputes every year, it becomes impossible for the Federal Courts to be heard by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has jurisdictions that limit the variety of cases that are clearly defined in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has developed specific rules that within the jurisdictions will and will not hear. The Federal Court must show they have extreme and substantial evidence in the outcome of the case. In mootness, the Federal

Also commonly referred to as The Steel Seizure Case, it was a United States Supreme Court decision that limited the power of the President of the United States to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the US Constitution or statutory authority conferred on him by Congress. The Majority decision was that the President had no power to act except in those cases expressly or implicitly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.

Courts impact policy through how they interpret and apply the law. How the federal court wields their

There have been many complaints and theories of how the Supreme Court has a tendency to act as a "supra-legislature" (Woll 153). It is proposed that the Supreme Court takes the

The Supreme Court of the United States is perhaps the most eminent judicial branch in the world and has served for a model for justice and democracy. However the Court is not exempted from scrutiny, and critics question the increasing politicized nature of the Court, from the appointment process to the nature of their decisions in landmark cases like; Dred Scott v. Sandford, Roe v. Wade to Bush v. Gore. Based on empirical evidence, this essay argues that the United States Supreme Court today is severely influenced by politics and not as much by law- at least in practice. Indeed, robust partisanship of the political interests of the President and Congress imposes on the constitutional function of the Court.

     It is nearly impossible to avoid politics during the appointments of high profile positions; therefore, the idea that Supreme Court is above politics when referring to its appointments is giving to much credit to that entity. The appointments of the Supreme Court, as with any political body, correlate no only to the media's portraying, but also to interest group the President wishes to appease.

Judicial Activism- When judges deny legislators or the executive the power to do something unconstitutional.

The debate between Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint really grabbed my attention. Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint are two different ways to interpret the constitution and its laws. Both interpretations have their own strengths and weaknesses, which is why it is so hard to come to a final decision of which is acceptable and which is not (in most cases). While at the debate I didn’t realize how many cases have boiled down to these two concepts. There have been many cases ended up being decided by both interpretations.

The US Supreme Court has a number of powers. These include the power to declare acts of Congress, the executive or state legislatures unconstitutional through the power of judicial review. The supreme court justices are also given the power to interpret the constitution when making decisions, again, through their power of judicial review. It is arguable that it is essential for the supreme court to have such powers in order to allow the American democracy to flourish. However, there is much evidence to suggest that the supreme court holds too much power for an unelected body, thus hindering democracy.

The power of judicial review was established by the Supreme Court in the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison and gives the judicial branch the ability to decide the constitutionality of a law or Executive action. Judicial review has no constitutional grounds, meaning that the Supreme Court essentially created its own power: the power to interpret the constitution. Since then, the balance between judicial activism and judicial restraint has varied greatly from era to era.

In the society of the United States, most of our rules, albeit laws or moral beliefs, come from decisions made in the Supreme Court and what exactly they refer to. The direction of momentum in the workforce, schooling, and even the white house have been vastly adjusted by the verdicts that come out of the Court. These directional modifications have been ratified and lead the people to challenge the current views of society and lead to more and more changes that are right and just for the system in order to prevent further wrongdoing in the nation.

Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. said it the best in his speech to the Text & Teaching Symposium, "We current Justices read the Constitution in the only way that we can: as Twentieth Century Americans." Justice Brennan also called the Constitution a fundamentally public text and called for its use to resolve public issues. If that is true, then the document must be interpreted from today's perspective - Judicial Activism. However, using only that approach would be saying that the work of the original framers was mute. This document is over two hundred years old and still very relevant to today's society. In my opinion, the court needs to find a fine line between activism and restraint or intentionalism