Does John Roberts Create Controversial Decisions Or Constraints?

The Supreme Court’s decision finalized the questions of whether states have the right to pass laws treating marriages differently based upon sex, and if states have to acknowledge the marriage of same-sex couples who were married in another state. On a 5-4 decision, the Court determined that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because they cannot be treated differently than opposite sex couples. The court also determined that states have to recognize same-sex marriages the same way they do with opposite-sex. However, the Supreme Court did not create a law about same sex marriage, it just stated that

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.

NPR’s legal affairs correspondent, Nina Totenberg, described a “horrible political storm” brewing over the Supreme Court of the United States (“CNN,” 2016, p. 1). While reporting for CNN, Totenberg used these words to draw attention to the untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia in an era of modern politics in which the court has become more polarized than ever. The Supreme Court, the highest court of the land, is not only being severely impacted by partisan ties, but is now also deciding cases according to these biased beliefs. The Democratic and Republican parties, after corrupting and encroaching upon the federal judiciary, have made court nominations and rulings into a game of party politics, inevitably destroying the impartiality of the

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 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

The Supreme Court, against the views of Republicans, voted to allow gay marriage to take place in America. “Gay marriage being legalized is a good thing. Equal rights for all is part of the 14th amendment. So people can’t choose heterosexuals over homosexuals while dealing with marriage” (studentdailynews.com). The United States Constitution was written to give certain rights to Americans. Violating the 14th amendment of the Constitution is both illegal and does not to give the freedom that we all deserve living in America. “ The America I heard singing when I was a teen-ager in the late 1950’s forced homosexuals into hiding, ignored or derided the disabled, withheld rights from suspects of crimes and kept women in their place, which was usually the kitchen and sometimes an abortionists back room” (Rosenblatt Page 253) This is a horrible way to live and is not what our founding fathers wanted for America. We were meant to live in a free country, not one where the government dictates what a person can and cannot do. Aside from social issues, the topic of taxes is important in governing

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.

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 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.”

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

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

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

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.

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 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,