Hollingsworth vs. Perry: Dispute Case Analysis

Judicial activists tend to view the constitution as a living document; they protect individuals’ rights and tend not to rely on historical events in their interpretation of the constitution (Law 220 text 2-27, 28). Dynamism, a

The Supreme Court often oversteps its perceived legal sovereignty when using judicial review. Article III of the Constitution solely vests the courts the “judicial power of the United States” never mentioning the power of judicial review. The judiciary’s duty, according to the law of the land, is “to interpret the laws, not scan the authority of the lawgiver” (Gibson, J.). The judiciary has not followed a strict interpretation of the constitution; rather, it has encroached on the power of the legislative branch and the sanctity of the separation of powers. If the Constitution “were to come into collision with an act of the legislature” (Gibson, J.), the Constitution would take precedent, but it is

Facts: In 2000, California voters adopted Proposition 22, defining marriage as a relationship only between a man and a woman. The California Supreme Court invalidated Proposition 22 and California began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Proponents of Proposition 8, who opposed same-sex marriage, collected signatures and filed petitions to get Proposition 8 on the ballot. In November 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, "which added language to the California Constitution that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman" (Santoro & Wirth, 2013). Two same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses and were denied, then brought suit under 42 U.S.C.S. ยง 1983, based on the idea that Proposition 8 violated equal protection. The State of California refused to argue in favor of Proposition 8 and the original proponents of Proposition 8 sought to defend the law. In May of 2009, Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional by a California District Court, which held that it violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision. The case then came before the Supreme Court. However, the State of California is not defending Proposition 8; instead, a mix of private parties is defending the law. This has led to questions about standing as well as the constitutional issues in the case.

The American concept of democracy provides that no branch of government shall be more powerful and uncontrolled than the other branches (Lutzenberger, 2012). Judicial review is the power of the courts to oversee and prevent the legislative and executive branches from becoming abusive. Through this power, the courts interpret the meaning of laws and their application. They can invalidate a law, which they deem inconsistent with the US Constitution. They can also change the application of the law when interpreting it. Although the Constitution does not explicitly mention this power, the courts infer it from the provisions on the judicial branch in the Constitution. This inference was first made in 1803 in the Marbury v Madison case. The court declared the existence of the power and that it was for the exclusive use of the courts. They use it to interpret the intents of the Constitution on legal issues submitted to them for decision (Lutzenberger).

The purpose of this research is to rationalize an amendment to the Constitution of the United States forcing Supreme Court Justices into a medical review to determine if the Justices are physically and mentally able to continue to serve their tenure. The focus is to create a half way point between two opinions in the very controversial subject of the Supreme Court Justices tenure. As the Judicial Branch becomes more active, citizens have questioned the rationale of justices serving for life, while others maintain that there is no need for change. The middle ground purposed is the establishment of a medical review of the justices and the hard part is establishing when they are medically unfit to serve. Considering the Constitutional purpose

The assumption approach is the result of two Supreme Court cases, Horowitz and Ewing. In Horowitz, a medical student brought a due process claim against the University of Missouri-Kansas City for dismissing her for academic reasons. The Supreme Court first discussed whether Horowitz had a protected interest. The Supreme Court noted that the plaintiff never alleged a property interest, but that if she were to do so, she would have to rely upon Missouri state law to have a valid claim. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court assumed the plaintiff had a property interest in her case without deciding the question. Instead of addressing the property interest question, the Supreme Court found that the university provided the plaintiff sufficient process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore the Supreme Court never determined whether the student had a property interest in her education.

The United States judicial branch to the general American public can seem insulated from politics, because of their adversarial system, that does not allow judges to choose their cases. The judicial branch unlike, their two counterparts, the legislative and executive at large rely on the respect of the American people and the heads of the two other branches. In appointing members of the federal judiciary, Presidents appoint members who resemble their political ideologies and their likelihood of confirmation in the Senate, the Senate confirms these members based on their performance on the litmus test and Senatorial courtesy. Courts, specifically the Supreme Court, make decisions based on the Constitution, but the legislative branch has the

Perry v. New Hampshire 10-8974 US (2012). This case is before the Supreme Court of the United States of America following an appeal by the defendant, Barion Perry.

In this chapter, the question of if judicial independence is being undermined is asked. Attacks upon activist judges is a recurring theme in the United States. Various judges are attacked across the state for the decisions they make. In an adversary system, a judge’s decision often fails to find favor with the losing party. These losing parties normally label the judge as and “activist”. This means that the judge had made an unpopular opinion. There has been many examples of judges being subject to the attacks such as when Justice Penny White was voted off the bench because she voted in a death penalty case to grant the defendant more leeway. These attacks on judges can have a harsh impact on the judicial independence. The American Judicature

Up until this day, people with mental disorders are misunderstood which often leads them to being mishandled in the United States. So when the Perry v. Louisiana case was brought to the Supreme Court, it was clear, the decision would have lasting effects. Though many may find it easy to use people’s mental disorders as excuses to punish them, it is wrong in fact, as they are unaware of the harm being caused to others or themselves.

In Judicial Tyranny the New Kings of America, Mark Sutherland proposes his ideas on how America is now being heavily influenced by tyrannical judges who pervert the constitution, to support their individual positions. According to Cambridge Dictionary, tyranny is defined as, “unlimited authority or use of power, or a government which exercises such power without any control or limits” (Cambridge 2015). There is, in our society, an over-reaching judicial branch ran by judges who are consumed by the idea that they are the resource which can establish or re-define the law. The three fallacies with our society is tyrannical judges who impose man’s law above sovereign law , citizens who don’t know about the un-constitutional rule that judges are imposing over the courts, and those who know about it but don’t know how to react when facing a tyrannical judge.

As the former mentioned document does not forbid the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus but simply does not state it, I do not feel like the Judiciary Act of 1789 is in conflict with the Constitution. The Constitution is not capable of including every eventuality there is, therefore declaring every law not mentioned in the Constitution as unconstitutional would restrict the actions of the legislative and executive immensely. Instead, declaring acts as unconstitutional should be limited to laws or actions directly interfering with it. I do think judicial review is an important tool in the modern system of checks and balances and plays a significant role in keeping different branches from gaining too much power. It is, therefore, necessary to

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.

Many of America’s democratic principles are drawn from the constitution like the checks and balances system. The supreme court’s power of judicial review was not mentioned in the constitution. It evolved following the Marbury Vs Madison case and was not granted by the constitution. The Supreme Court therefore does not have the authority to carry out judicial review and become a quasi-legislative branch because the constitution granted this power to Congress.

As a student at CSUN I sadly admit I had no idea what Judicial Activism was, along with Judicial Restraint. I don’t recall on learning any of this in high school or in any time of my life, that says mush about our country, furthermore, it was very interesting researching about these certain terms. I did come across some articles explaining the main tenants of both Judicial activism and Judicial restraint. Basically, for Judicial Restraint it’s the belief that the legislatures make the decisions and for the Judicial Activism it’s the belief that a Judge should make the decision.