Does John Roberts Create Controversial Decisions Or Constraints?

Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules, they apply them” (www.judiciary.senate.gov). Roberts explained that judges and justices are simply there to make sure everyone follows the laws that are in place. He talked about how it was important for judges to have realized they operate within system. The system is shaped by other judges doing their best to fulfill the judicial oath. The law is applies to everyone, and every case must be in accordance with the constitution. Roberts said if confirmed he would look at every case with an open mind, and fully analyze the arguments presented. Roberts, without fear or favor, would decide each case in accordance to the law (www.judiciary.senate.gov). Roberts goes on to do just that, and look at each case with an open mind and to make a decision based on the law.

In the historic ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges declaring same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states, four justices voted against the majority, each giving his or her own reason for dissenting. This momentous decision arose many controversial questions, many believing our justice system was faulty in the decision making process for an issue of such gravity and lasting implications.

The ideology of Justices makes a difference as to the positions they advance in cases. The attitudinal model

This leads to “inevitable bias being introduced into our political and legal cultures” (Dyzenhaus, Moreau, and Ripstein 544). Because these judges are coming from similar backgrounds, they share perspectives that consequently lead to the suppression of those whose interests are not “adequately recognized or supported by the dominant, mainstream ideologies” (Dyzenhaus, Moreau, and Ripstein 544). It is not hard to understand why some fear a Charter that is so hard to change is violating the principles of democracy. Judges, in no sense, are in the position of moral authority nor are they experts in areas typically concerned with by the government (Dyzenhaus, Moreau, and Ripstein 543). The judiciary is the epitome of contrasting notions when it comes to self-governing, the heart of democracy. Allowing unelected judges to overrule decisions of legislators is problematic for all of society and represents the abandonment of self-government (Dyzenhaus, Moreau, and Ripstein 541).

There are several factors that influence Supreme Court decision making, many of which fall into two categories of influence: political and legal. Demonstrated in the attitudinal model, a judge’s attitudes are often shaped by their political background, and the views of their peers. A judge’s party affiliation is a political factor that influences their judicial decision making. The Court’s policy of adhering to Stare Decisis or legal precedents and their dedication to interpreting the original intent of

The Great Chief Justice: John Marshall and the Rule of Law by Charles F. Hobson examines the judicial career of John Marshall, as well as the legal culture that helped to shape his political beliefs and his major constitutional opinions. The author sources much of his information from the formal opinions that Marshall issued during his judicial career. From these writings, Hobson presents Marshall 's views on law and government and provides explanations for what in Marshall 's life influenced those beliefs.

The current Chief Justice in the United States Supreme Court, John Glover Roberts Jr. was a former U. S. court Appeals for two years before becoming confirmed as Chief Justice in 2005 (“Biographies of Current Justices of the Supreme Court”). Before making his way into the political world, Roberts worked incredibly hard during his years at Harvard Law School. At Harvard College in 1976, Roberts received an A.B. and three years later received his J.D. from Harvard Law (“John Roberts Biography”). Over the years as Chief Justice, Roberts has impacted our country with two landmarked legislative cases. These two cases include, Obama Care and same sex marriage, both having global issues with our country today.

Justice Scalia has been recognized as the funniest justice in the Court, which in part has led him to become one of the most talked about Justices. Justice Scalia receives a great deal of attention from both his supporters and his opponents; Nino has attracted most of the public’s attention with his controversial opinions, mostly those in which he dissents on cases related to moral issues, such as abortion. It is no secret that Justice Scalia holds a conservative opinion on the vast majority of the issues that the Court hears; The Supreme Court Compendium reports that between the years of 1937 and 2006, Justice Scalia is the only one who has received a -1 value , in terms of the conservativeness of his opinions. Contrary to what one would expect, one of Justice Antonin Scalia’s closest friends and colleagues is Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who tends to vote liberal – they are friends, but they often vote differently. A recent study released by the New York Times reports that Justice Scalia votes with Justice Clarence Thomas 91% of the time, with Justice John Roberts 90% of the time, and Justice Samuel Alito 86% of the time. This is no surprise, being

The Supreme Court supported this decision by ruling that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause promise such liberties. This decision showed the country just how controversial same-sex marriage is as many states, including Tennessee and Kentucky, provided moral obligations as their reasons behind the appeals. This relates to the civil liberties and civil rights in the united states because it violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision supports the 14th amendments and supports federal laws as supreme over state laws. This case relates to the 9th amendment because according to the ninth amendment, the “enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This means that there is no discussion in the original constitution, people have the right to get married. Same sex marriage is a hot topic right now and it seems that in recent years, its been a constant battle of it should be legal or not. So people are interpreting the constitution differently

Article III of the Constitution of the United States vests judicial power in “one supreme Court”. With incredible adaptability, the Constitution has stood the test of time. Largely due to the limited specificity as to the application of its words, the Constitution has allowed the character of the Court to be historically defined by the individuals who have held the position of “Chief Justice of the United States”. The ideology and individual Constitutional interpretation of each Chief Justice has changed both the influential power and message of the Court. Earl Warren, Warren Burger, and John G. Roberts, Jr. have all successfully been appointed to the Court as Chief Justices. And although the Constitutionally proscribed process of

The court’s other judges that ruled against had some strong opinions. A quote by Chief Justice Roberts gave the impression that this decision was based off of ideological beliefs rather than law. “But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it (2015).” Justice Scalia also had a rather scathing opinion,

Justice Roberts disagreed with the role of the Supreme Court and he strongly believed the ruling was an act of will, not legal judgment. However, Justice Roberts does believe this is a decision that is revolutionary and forward thinking. Furthermore, Roberts is clear that he does not have a personal problem with the outcome, just the process of to that point. Justice Roberts has made it clear that his decision was based on the restrained conception of the judicial role, rather than a personal view of the definition of marriage. Justice Roberts strongly believed, the decision should have rested in the hands of the people acting through their elected representatives. In his argument against the court, he believes the Constitution has the answers. Justice Roberts argues, the court's precedents have repeatedly described marriage in ways that are consistent only with its traditional meaning. Justice Roberts message, which, I agree with, wanted us to celebrate the availability of new benefits. But he does not want us to celebrate the Constitution, this is evident because he argued it had nothing to do with the question at hand.. There was also the issue of the Supreme Court and the power it should have and personally speaking, I strongly believe the Supreme Court has every

They sued the state’s and it went to the Supreme court and had multiple trials on the case. It was an extremely popular case and it was highly debated. It really did reflect the nation and it was a very popular case. The same sex couples always argued against the ban that it violated the equal protection clause and the 14th amendment. They also brought up the civil rights act one time when they went to court. www.usnews.co m said, "The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits. The Framers created our Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty. Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a 'liberty' that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect." This quote is really sending a message saying our nation was built on freedom of speech liberty and justice and it needs to be for everyone open minded or not. This quote was one of the more famous quotes on the case. The states Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee didn’t acknowledge same sex marriage and banned it causing this whole case and dispute to unfold. Overall the

The focus of this article is to raise the question of whether or not the President of the United States should be able to appoint a Supreme Justice in the midst of a political election year. The republicans are urging the process to be delayed until the presidential election is over and a new President is chosen. While President Obama claims that “Your job doesn’t stop until you are voted out or until your term expires.”

The issue of U.S. justices serving in the Supreme Court for life has been debated for years. While our forefathers who crafted the constitution had reasons for the lifetime service, Americans have had varying positions regarding the issue. This essay discusses the two sides of the lifetime tenure of American justices serving in the Supreme Court, seeking to gain ground on whether the term should be retained or amended.