Judicial Restraint

Together with, the Constitution of the United States likewise designed a strong government by establishing a national court system. This helped the government become more secure by having equal justice under law for every citizen including the president. In the document Powers of the Federal it presents the judicial powers and the supreme court. It states, “this branch interprets and ruled the actions of the other branches” (Document 2). This shows that the judicial branch has the ability to run each case according to the law it violated, without the influence of outside factors. Founding a national court system preserved and interpreted the law. Also, this demonstrates that having a court system help the government by equivalent laws enforce

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

Thoughts: This case is a good example of judicial review of which a higher court can review the

In reality, however, women are equally and in some ways more qualified to hold leadership positions than men. Although there is no single explanation for why women are underrepresented in politics, the gender gap in the political arena stems from the lack of female participation in elections as women are often discouraged or feel threatened by society to run for political office. Young women who aspire a career in politics encounter both structural and emotional barriers, which prevent them from running for political office. Women battle issues of self-confidence, face stereotypes, and derive false perceptions of political campaigns, all of which broaden the gender gap in the political

During his opening statement, Scalia employs rhetorical questions in order to elucidate that Americans’ lack of knowledge of the government forces judges to firmly abide by the United States’ unparalleled Constitution. He postulates, “How many of you have read the Federalist Papers?” The reality that “never more than about 5%” of his audience, who are “interested in the law,” has delved deep into the document portrays them as ignorant. With this concern, Scalia expounds upon his originalist ideals and encourages rivaling judges to alter their opinions of a flexible Constitution. Scalia credits his argument through the Framers who illustrated the significance of the Constitution in the Federalist Papers. Due to the fact that Americans are incapable of thoroughly interpreting the government, he attests that judges must abide by the precise words of the Constitution. Scalia advises his audience to

Jeannette Rankin was an influential person even before she ran for Representative, but now that she is in a position of more power, she can surely bring about more changes than she already has. She is a committed pacifist and she knows how to get her ideas across to others. She has led the way for women into positions of federal power, and more will surely follow. Rankin will work to get nationwide women’s voting rights, and she believes in gender equality. As she has said, “Men and women are like left and right hands, it doesn’t make sense not to use them both.”

Women first gained the right to vote on August 26, 1920 with the 19th amendment was approved, giving women full voting rights. Fortified by the constitutional victory in 1920, the handful of new women in Congress embarked on what would become a century-long journey to broaden women’s role in government. In the intervening years, the drive for more women’s rights encompassed the lives of the next generations of women. Even today, women are still fighting for their rights and stand up against prejudice. On the forefront of this movement are our women congresswomen who speak on behalf of all women. When Hillary Clinton announced her presidential candidacy, controversial questions immediately surfaced about the role of gender in politics. Through Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2008 and 2016, media is the principal propagator in showing bias and sexism.

The Chief Justice that presided over this case was C.J. Rehnquist, the other presiding Justices were J. O'Connor, J. Stevens, J. Souter, J. Breyer, JJ. Thomas, J. Kennedy, J. Scalia, and JJ. Ginsburg. Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion over the case with Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas filed concurring opinions. Whereas, Justices Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion. Before I go into the opinion that Rehnquist delivered I would like to go in to some of the opinions that the other Justices' had stated as to their dissenting opinions.

Review the cases below by going to the “Detailed Contents” section of the Contemporary Criminal Law textbook. After reviewing the case, select the defense that was represented in the case from the following list:

The book “Judicial Tyranny The New Kings of America?” is a compilation of articles and speeches. It is compiled by Mark Sutherland and includes writings from famed Christian personality James C. Dobson Chief Justice Roy Moore, Ambassador Alan Keyes, U.s Attorney General Ed Meese, among others. The book is a call to political action. It is aimed at Christian readers and the writers all argue that Christian politics equals constitutional purism. It is specifically meant to invoke constitutional responses and activism. Each chapter, twenty in all, are a few pages long and systematically decry the current judicial system and explain the lack of constitutional basis for their current level of power.

The issue here becomes whether the court’s decision was the right one or if they could have come up with a different decision had the case been studied from different perspectives making the decision wrong. Both arguments (for and against the Court’s decision) are discussed below, but I personally believe that court’s decision was the only right one to make.

Stare Decisis plays a large role in Judicial Restraint. Stare Decisis is sticking to an established ruling that was handed down by past judges or jurors. A form of judicial restraint is called the political question doctrine, and it is significant in understanding this interpretation of the law. The political question doctrine is when a court acknowledges that the constitution is violated but does not decide to act. There are plenty of examples of Judicial Restraint throughout our history but the one that stands out the most in my mind is Gore Vs. Bush. In this case the Florida supreme courts methods of recounting the presidential ballots was considered and ruled as having violated the Equal Protection Laws which is under the fourteenth amendment in a presidential election. Everyone seems to know that something wrong was done, but no one really understands what happened. Before this debate I didn’t realize that this was an example of Judicial Restraint. And this is why I caint agree with either interpretations of the law.

Even though there are women in government currently, i.e. Hillary Clinton, they always seem to be corrupt. While being corrupt is not necessarily something foreign to many politicians, Leslie Knope is a stranger to corruption and dishonesty. According to her official campaign page, she plans to make “our schools better, our sidewalks safer, and our libraries fewer” (Leslie Knope 2). Working with the raccoon problem, repaving Grand Avenue, and creating more parks are just a few of the things she plans to do (Leslie Knope 2). She always sees a bright future and tries to do what will benefit the people of Pawnee, Indiana. Due to the fact that only 19.3 percent of the United States House of Representatives and 20 percent of the United States Senate are women, it is very important for young girls to see characters like Leslie Knope

The political arena is a tough place to be part of, especially during a campaign. Your opponent and their supporters are constantly watching your every move with the hopes that you will make a mistake, or that somebody will find some detrimental dirt on you. Now imagine also being a woman, not only will you have to face the hardships that male candidates cope with but you will also have to handle the adversity based on your gender and the stereotypes that go along with being a female. Women have to be prepared to confront the fact that they may not even be wanted in that setting. For example Margaret Carlson stated,

The principle of stare decisis is generally followed by the levels of the judicial system. Court’s opinions may be based on either binding or persuasive precedents. An opinion is considered a binding or controlling precedent if it has been written by a court in a higher position within the pyramid structure. Therefore, a precedent written by a federal circuit court should be abided by the federal district court directly below it on the pyramid but not by the Supreme Court which is located above it on the pyramid. However, a court may treat the opinion as a persuasive precedent in which they “choose to embrace a well-reasoned, nonbinding opinion” (Berman et al., 2016, p. 56). Therefore, the judge or judges may view the opinion as having no precedent over the case and are non-binding but provides consideration and guidance for the current case.