Essay On Salience

The role of the Judicial Branch of the United States has been the most dynamic throughout the Nation’s history. By adopting the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the Supreme Court established its position as being arguably the most powerful branch of Federal Government. However, this also made the Judiciary’s role the most controversial. Should the Court be required to interpret the constitution strictly through the language it contains? Does the Court have the right to overturn morals legislation? Through analyzing court cases like Lawrence v. Texas, one can gain insight on the role of the Supreme Court and how it fits within the confines of the United States Government.

Since the Supreme Court's settlement in Roe v. Wade, differences surrounding the issue has effected the

In the book Courting Disaster: How the Supreme Court is Usurping the Power of Congress and the People, it sets out to identify how our government has changed and how these changes affect us and our laws. Pat Robertson wants the people to see how the Supreme Court is abusing power. Robertson shows how the federal judges are not only abusing their power but reaching beyond the power they are given. Thomas Jefferson once cautioned that, “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions” are “a very dangerous doctrine indeed” and “one that would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy” (Robertson, Courting disaster: How the supreme court is usurping the power of Congress and the people, 2004).

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.

Starting with the decision in Roe v. Wade, more and more social oriented decisions have been made, further emphasizing the unintentional political correctness of the Constitution. As thoughts about culture and women’s roles changed in the mid 1970s, it was discovered that the Constitution as interpreted by then current laws was socially incorrect. The issue of abortion became more and more prevalent until in 1973, in the case of Roe v. Wade, abortions up until the third trimester are legal for all, not just in compromising situations. Roe v. Wade overturned a 1857 Texas law that stated abortion was illegal except in the case of the mother’s danger. When brought before the Supreme Court, it was decided in a 7-2 decision that the Texas statute was unconstitutional, breaching the right to privacy in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This clearly followed the changing social attitudes of the 1960s and the continued legalization of what used to be social taboos, such as the ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, stating that same-sex marriage was legal in all states. The constant back and forth between what is socially acceptable and what the Constitution declares legal needs to be understood and thought of when addressing the constitutionality of an act. Due to the amazing amount of past and current moral

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 first part of this essay will provide a brief insight into the history of the Supreme Court, the original intentions of the founding fathers and a discussion on how they idealized the relationship between politics and the law. The second section will explore how the contemporary process to which judges are appointed has become significantly influenced by politics. The third section will discuss how the Supreme Court overstepped its boundaries on constitutional interpretation in the Roe v. Wade case. The final section will unpack the importance of partisanship and ideological politics and discuss how it impacts the function of the Justices in their

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) sent shock waves through the United States as it slowly peeled back the layers of Roe. To recap, Webster deemed it was constitutional for the Missouri legislative chamber to include in a bill that the “life of each human being begins at conception” despite this being a debated fact among the pro-life and pro-choice crowds. Another interesting distinction that was upheld, and helped to light the fire for other states to enact this, was that abortions could not occur at public hospitals or any state owned property. Essentially, what Missouri said was “abortion may be legal, but we don’t have to outright endorse it”. This issue was not addressed at all in Roe, but it clearly was a massive blow to

Hodges concluded that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of a person protected by the Constitution. The Court has long afforded the right to marry constitutional protection. But the standard test for identifying a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause is that the right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition (Washington Post)”. However, the majority opinion went further to find that “the liberties implied within the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause have stretched to certain personal choices central to a person’s dignity and autonomy, including their intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs (Washington Post)”. Using this idea, the majority opinion concluded that the liberty interest to marry extends to same-sex couples. The ruling has helped gay rights advocates fight more than a hundred and fifteen pieces of legislation that were introduced in state legislatures that were targeting gay people. The majority opinion agreed that the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change. “In addition to clearing the way for same-sex marriage nationwide, Friday’s decision may help end discrimination against gays and lesbians in other matters, such as adoption and custody rights, legal experts say (LATimes)”. Gay couples can now have no problem matters when wanting to start a family because of the great decision made by the Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in the United States v. Windsor, which struck down a federal law denying benefits to married same-sex couples, and exactly twelve years after his majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down laws making gay sex a crime.“In all his decisions Justice Kennedy embraced a vision of a living Constitution, one that evolves with societal changes (NYTimes)”. Kennedy makes a great point that the generations before wrote and ratified the Bill

Supporters of gay marriage in the United States were a minority group for quite some time. (Green, 2015) The topic of homosexuality and same sex marriage is one that probes the primary question of whether or not same sex marriages are ones fundamental right under both the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Lempert, 2015) The case of Obergefell v. Hodges was a case that held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to recognize and grant same sex marriage licenses to couples that have been granted that right in other jurisdictions. This case may be considered a significant decision of the United States

Roe v. Wade was then as it is now, a hot subject button. Women were still fighting for equal rights in society. The issue at hand was a woman able to make decisions if they could terminate a pregnancy, and if not, was it considered taking a life. The case was somewhat settled by a decision from the Supreme Court.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution is considered by many to be the catchall amendment within the reconstruction amendments that passed not long after the Civil War. Its due process and especially the equal protection clause have single handily changed the course of American History for all eternity. I believe that there are several key issues that plague the way our highest court approaches matters of sexual orientation and other issues as well. In this document I intend to explore what events of the past led to the constitutional interpretation of today regarding the fourteenth. In doing so we will travel over the course of a century or more in time and see the social landscape of a nation evolve based upon new societal interpretations and little more.

To analyze when abortion and affirmative action became politicized, we decided to use a media analysis to look at the number of front page appearances of the words “abortion” and “affirmative action” on the following prominent newspapers: The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times. We specifically wanted to draw attention to the number of front page appearances of the terms before, during, and after the key cases highlighted in the charts accompanying our results. We believe the number of headlines shows the prominence, and therefore the politicization, of controversial issues and we believe the years with the highest number of headlines are the years in which key cases were heard and decided by the Supreme Court. Keep

Over the past several years the homosexual community has made great strides in attempting to justify their right to legally join in matrimony. Society as a whole has come a long way in becoming more tolerant and acknowledging of same sex partners and their choices to form families. Given our first amendment right to freedom of speech, there are plenty of sentiments regarding whether or not laws should be ratified permitting these male or female partners to have the legal right to marry. There are numerous of current trends that provide absolute support to the homosexual community with hopes of increasing the level of tolerance. In addition, the great economic advantages that have come about from same-sex marriages in supporting states, has

Opposition to gay marriage has increased since the summer and a narrow majority of Americans also oppose allowing gays and lesbians to enter legal agreements that fall short of marriage. Moreover, despite the overall rise in tolerance toward gays since the 1980s, many Americans remain highly critical of homosexuals ­ and religious belief is a major factor in these attitudes.