Judicial Controversy With Impartial Justice

The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican

“All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law” This quote from Theodore Roosevelt illustrates how corporate money can be disastrous when involved in election cycles. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The Supreme Court decided in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that companies and Super PAC’s could donate unlimited amount of money to support candidates. The Citizens United ruling has caused increased political corruption in the United States by giving candidates the money they need to win an election while changing policies that would be beneficial to the company.

Over the years the cost of running for judicial office has become more and more costly due to the amount of money it takes to purchase commercial ads and politicking. This has made it necessary to take donations in order to have a substantial campaign here inlays the dilemma; most Texans are indifferent to judicial campaigns leaving the donating to interest groups, lawyers, and possible litigants. Making the possibility for leniency and partiality in future cases where the donators could expect a more favorable outcome in their cases in the judges court. Our book states that 86 percent of judges believed that campaign support had some influences over judicial decisions. This would mean that guilt and innocence could be bought with campaign money endangering our very way of impartial decisions.

John Paul Stevens’ book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, advocates the concept of self-governance which, in his perspective, has been poorly compromised by recent Supreme Court rulings. At the age of ninety-four, Stevens criticizes these modern court opinions and advises that we push for amendments to overturn these misguided court decisions. The six subjects of controversy that Stevens has proposed remedies for are the anti commandeering rule, political gerrymandering, campaign finances, sovereign immunity, death penalty, and gun control. These claims are supported with both historical evidence as well as his own personal perspective on court rulings that he has participated in during his 35 years as a

The decisions of justices have "altered behavior of political and governmental officials as well as a man walking down the street"(Miller 4). To understand

The Federal Court Case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee is a case with a controversial outcome. The Supreme Court came to the decision, through a 5-4 vote, that for-profit corporations have the same rights to finance political campaigns as citizens. The Supreme Court held in Citizens United that it was unconstitutional to ban free speech through the limiting of independent advertisements by corporations, associations, or unions (CU vs. FEC). The Supreme Court Decision allows corporations and unions to use their financial resources to either promote or persuade against any political candidate on an advertisement. The ruling also allows corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns and does away with any limits on how much a corporate donor can contribute to a campaign (ibid). While the businesses may not give money straight to campaigns, they have the choice to persuade the population of voters as a whole through the use of advertisements, just as Political Action Committees do. The corporate funding of political advertisements is made possible by the First Amendment because it guarantees the right to free speech, and political spending is one form of that protected speech.

The American public often thinks of law making as the job of congress or the president, and often overlooks the importance of the judicial branch (you said citation needed? But I’m not citing anything these are my own words) . However, The Supreme Court is a national policy maker and directly affects the nation’s laws as well as how the constitution is interpreted; therefore, the decisions that the Supreme Court establishes directly affect thousands of Americans’ lives. It is with this fact in mind that I hope to examine and illustrate the importance of public opinion on the highest Court. If most of America supports an idea, does the Court reflect this majority? Should the court have to reflect the nation’s majority? This thesis examines

In a court case in 2010, Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission, the ability to spend virtually limitless money on an election was given under first amendment protection. With this ruling, Political Action Committees, or super PACs, have become tremendously influential when it comes to elections. Unlike regular PACs, these super PACs cannot directly donate any raised money directly to this political candidate. While these parties can not directly donate this raised money, and must be independent of the candidate they support or oppose, there is a huge debate of the unclear line involved with who can be a part of these super PACs. For example, Obama had his Republican challenger and former aides of his office supporting his super PAC.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was a 2010 Supreme Court case concerning the regulation of campaign contributions by corporations, unions, and non-profit organizations. The case is known for its holding that campaign spending by such groups is protected under the First Amendment as a form of free speech.

In 2012, in an effort to win reelection as President of the United States, Barack Obama raised $1072.6 million dollars. $78.8 million of it was raised by the Priorities USA Action Super PAC. (Ashkenas, Ericson, Parlapiano, and Willis, 2012) PACs or Political Action Committees are groups formed in order to raise and spend money for a political candidate. PACs began in 1944 and had strict guidelines set by the Federal Election Committee in which an individual could only donate $2,500 to a PAC and companies were not allowed to donate money. This changed in 2010 with the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Citizens United in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee case which indirectly led to the formation of Super PACs which allowed for unlimited spending and unlimited donations from individuals or corporations to political

Spaeth (1991) speak about the basis in which the Supreme Court was built upon and its importance, and how the power was divided within the government from the Constitution’s creators. In their article “Judicial power and authority,” Edward Conrad Smith and Harold J. Spaeth (1991) speak about the basis in which the Supreme Court was built upon and its importance, and how the power was divided within the government from the Constitution’s creators. This supports the realization that Presidents do not get away with everything, and that the Supreme Court will strike down anybody and

During the Question & Answer portion of the September 18th faculty panel discussion regarding “Democracy & Inequality,” President Garrett and Professor Robert H. Frank, management and economics, criticized the Supreme Court’s holding in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) that the First Amendment permits independent corporate political expenditures.

These source texts address the enduring issue concerning checks and balances by relating our undemocratic Supreme Court with democracy. These issues clearly reflect how prescient our founding fathers were in generating a set of founding principles enabling posterity to grapple with new and evolving situations that could not have been foreseen in the context of the times when our founding documents were written. Luckily, our system of checks and balances is closely aligned with democracy, and in most cases, provides useful direction in resolving the tension between the old and new issues. The argument that the Supreme Court is undemocratic is well supported because Supreme Court justices are appointed for life and because

In this famous quote, Justice Stevens accurately describes the Constitution as “a mysterious document.” Just a few pages of parchment long, the United States Constitution dictates the function and operation of a vast system of governance, and is filled with phrases and clauses that can be interpreted and manipulated countless ways. However, the idea that “the Constitution is so vague that no one really knows what it permits and what is prohibits” is an even more accurate description of the chief problem of the document. This reformulation of Justice Stevens’ quote accurately portrays the core dilemma of Constitutional decision making. While judicial opinions are largely based off of the personal opinions of the justices, this drawback is an inevitable part of the Court’s role.

Democracy is flawed and the process of judges having to campaign for their seats on the bench extends these flaws. A judiciary cannot be independent and neutral if judges have to deal with campaign fundraising. The role of money in judicial elections is expanding rapidly, $206 million is the amount raised by candidates for state judgeships in the past decade, more than double the $83 million judges raised in the 1990s (Reddick). Super PACs make an appearance with this new role of money. Information given by Super PACs is directed to the masses by filling the public sphere with attack ads and sometimes even false facts, causing these judicial campaigns to be indistinguishable from any other ordinary political campaign. Judges should be distinguishable from executives and legislators due to their need to “be and appear to be” impartial when making decisions (Dodd). This need for judges to be impartial comes from the concept of fundamental fairness called “due process.” (Brown). This equal justice under the law is only possible when we keep our judges insulated from politics and the public.