Jan Greenburg : A Legal Communicator For The Abc News

Court History and Purpose. The courts are a critical component of American criminal justice because they determine what should happen to people charged with violating the law. Courts are important beyond criminal justice, too. Disputes that arise between private parties, businesses, government officials, and the like are brought to court in order to ensure that they are heard, ideally, in a neutral forum (Siegel, Schmalleger, & Worrall, 2011). Succeeding in liberation and independence is difficult within the world and as simple as legally right and legally wrong. Courts emphasize on the power of the state and the legitimate use of force and protect people against the random use of legislative authority. The tension among the general

In Supreme Conflict, Jan Crawford Greenburg provides insightful analysis and assessment of the politics surrounding the Supreme Court appointment process of Justices during the Rehnquist Court. Despite having seven conservative nominees the Rehnquist Court was deeply disappointing to those conservatives hoping to reverse decades of progressive rulings on key social issues. Throughout the book Greenburg describes both positive and negative appointments and nominations such as Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas, and David Souter. Greenburg also includes some background on the impact the Warren and Berger Courts had on the Rehnquist and later Roberts Courts.

What is also interesting to note, is that the balance of power and who ultimately gets seated on the Supreme court is decided on Capitol Hill. Up until this point in the review, there has been very little discussed about how the legislature plays into the decision process of how the justices are seated (Robertson, 2004). However, as it is critical for a sitting president to have a Supreme Court sided towards the president’s political affiliation, it is equally as important to have a legislature that will also seek to have the nominee on the panel of justices. The author suggests, that this hope is quickly diminished when during the presidency, the legislature’s majority is the opposing party. The author does an excellent job in communicating this dynamic in reflecting on President Clinton’s attempt to have his justice nominees appointed during his time in office (Burke, 1993). The issues of getting nominees approved was also driven by a number of critical turnovers within the office of the presidency. This point underscores that lobbying is not limited to companies and organizations but to the power of the president to push justice nominations through the system (p.44). Finally, another aspect that was discussed that hindered the process was that President Clinton did not hold his ground and in each instance where he faced resistance, the president would remove the candidate presenting another with the hope that the new nominee would pass the nominee process

The authority of judicial review recognized by Marbury has allowed the court to result revolutionary alteration in our sympathetic of constitutional supplies. This power hasn’t unpredictably, haggard both censure and praise over the court’s antiquity, but it has never been a supremacy totally beyond the jurisdiction of the other divisions of government. Since the President’s authority to appoint and the Senate’s authority to approve Supreme Court Justices to the infrequent great efforts of constitutional alteration, the court remains resolutely entrenched in our Constitution’s system of checks and balances. Meanwhile judicial review has certified that the Supreme Court’s justices, once established, have adequate power to apply their individuality from the political divisions and apply constitutional bounds on their powers. The Court’s power in constitutional clarification rests in part on general

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

The book shows how justices grow into their roles, either as a dealmaker or dissenter or leader. This process sometimes takes many years. Justices mature and see

The appointment and conformation to the Supreme Court has become on of the most sought after and most prestigious positions in the U.S. Government. In the past two hundred years the Supreme Court has changed in many different ways and with each decision affecting the delicate balance of the U.S. legal system the appointment of justices has become a very watched over subject. In all conformation and appointment to the Supreme Court there is politics involved but with each presiding president their agenda is focused towards appointing a justice that expresses their ideas on the court.

As politics roar between foreign policy, presidential campaigning and for a while now the vacant seat from the late Anthony Scalia, we can see opinions from both parties for and against the filling of the seat for many reasons. As the US nation, wide spreads the presidential campaign, we see many viewpoints, drawing in from all over for the nominee pickings in November, with not a large choice in the presidential race we see much of the fighting rebelling against the vacant seat too. With politician's voice suggesting that the people have a choice of who fills the seat, while the president and congress have other thoughts, has created a large split between the houses, while the Supreme Court is equally split to figure out how to unequally figure

Jeffery Rosen’s novel, The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries that Defined America follows the history of the Supreme Court of the United States through both personal and philosophical rivalries that shaped the transformation of laws and our lives. Rosen shows us the rivalries between justices and their ideologies and how their ideologies have shaped our laws today. Starting in 1952 with President Harry S Truman and ending fifty four years later with the presidency of George W. Bush, Rosen takes and shapes the novel through the eyes of the justices. The novel, The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court by Jeffery Toobin, an acclaimed legal analyst at CNN shows us a deeper look at the most secret legal body of

Chapter 12: The article discusses the appointment process, and the president's ability to appoint justices. The white house staff plays a role in helping the president choose who the new justice should be, because these members are president picked and have the president’s ideologies in mind. This relates back to chapter 12, because the white house staff and the fact that they are chosen by the president are

With Justice Scalia’s seat vacant, the Supreme Court was left deadlocked with four liberal justices and four conservative justices. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promised hours after Justice Scalia’s death that his seat will be filled by the next president, reaffirmed by Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley and the ten other Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. President Obama nominated Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy, a center-left judge respected by members across both sides of the aisles. Nevertheless, Senator McConnell has vowed that a lame duck president should not get to fill a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. History has shown that this view has not necessarily played out throughout history, and there are several reasons why Judge Garland should get both a hearing and a straight up-or-down vote, but not necessarily confirmation. This is supported by the consideration of previous nominees within the last two years of a lame-duck president, both controversial and uncontroversial from the beginning of the republic to the late 20th

The polarized politics of the Roberts Court article examines the Roberts Court and its relationship to the Obama’s government after the results of midterm elections in 2014. It starts by analyzing the structure of the Court during the past 40 years. The court has been structured by electoral politics and it has been seen to be more conservative, divided and polarized in its decision-making and this reflects the politics of the post-1968 electoral regime. The article also looks at the impact of the 2014 midterm election. The article shows that the control of the senate by Republican will lead to constrain to the president’s ability to shape the federal courts proceeding (Clayton and Salamone 739). There is likelihood of the Republican leaving the composition of the current Supreme Court intact and also leave Justice Kennedy as the pivotal swing vote. It will also elevate the Court as a campaign issue in the coming 2016 presidential elections.

Decision-making is at the core of the United States Supreme Court. The justices are not immune to possessing political ideologies and similarly to the American public, those ideologies impact their lives to varying degrees. The facet of judicial politics explored in this paper is decision-making and the impact of ideology. While it would be ideal for the Supreme Court to have zero influences other than the constitution, it is also wishful thinking. Author Jeffrey Toobin agrees with political scientists that the justices of the United States Supreme Court make decisions and rulings that are a result of their ideologies and personal values. He says, “All justices have a political ideology as well as a legal philosophy--- that’s a big reason presidents choose them in the first place.” Perhaps the most astute opinion on this matter comes from Justice Sonia Sotomayor:

There are several factors that determine the decisions that Supreme Court Justices make. Many Americans believe that no matter what the Supreme Court rules, Congress has the official say in the end. On the contrary, many believe that the Supreme Court is the biggest, most effective, branch of our democratic government. The influential factors and ideology of the Supreme Court’s judicial decision-making processes are primarily based on the concept of a “Constrained” court and “Dynamic” court, as well as the judicial precedents that have been engraved into our political system since the Constitution.

It is undeniable that there are differences between the powers of the judicial branch in comparison with the powers granted to the legislative and executive branches. The obvious differences include the appointment, rather than election of justices and the lifetime tenure of justices. These differences appear to be in place to limit the political influence upon justices throughout their tenure. The American public, however, still expresses distrust in the Supreme Court and by a two-to-one margin, believe politics played too great a role in recent health care cases (Hamilton, 2012).