Judicial Tyranny The New Kings Of America Analysis

Founders of the United States of America believed in providing the people of this great nation with a fair, and impartial judicial system. The basic rights of the people, which are listed in the Bill of Rights, needed to be respected and protected by the government. Abraham Lincoln once said “Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth”. Every part of the United States government has a duty to protect the people that gave the government power, and one organization in particular plays a very large role in this charge. The Judicial System of the United States America is a complex organization constructed to uphold the authority of the Constitution, and federal law. The judges within the

Judicial activism in American society has shaped legislation as interpreted by the view of justices in cases that have challenges current law. The practice of judicial activism has allowed judges to essentially create new bias legislation out of existing laws that may not possess explicit standards. In other words, existing law is expounded upon with personal or political consideration rather than what the law states and following it as specified. Moreover, judicial decisions usually determine future rulings that have resounding effects on society (Stephenson, 2013). However, does judicial activism depict good or bad judiciary practices? It does not take much to understand that partiality would exist in the answer to that question as each individual may answer

In America’s time there have been many great men who have spent their lives creating this great country. Men such as George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson fit these roles. They are deemed America’s “founding fathers” and laid the support for the most powerful country in history. However, one more man deserves his name to be etched into this list. His name was John Marshall, who decided case after case during his role as Chief Justice that has left an everlasting mark on today’s judiciary, and even society itself. Through Cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) he established the Judicial Branch as an independent power. One case in particular, named Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), displayed his

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

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

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).

He focuses on the opinions to “highlight the contradictions inherent in the courts,”(24). Haney Lopez can improve his argument by analyzing if the court was powerful by implementing their decisions as recent scholars suggests that the Supreme Court has historically been unable to implement their decisions alone. In one of the first major Supreme cases, Worchester v. Georgia (1832), President Jackson comments, “Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it, ” the decision is not implemented as it lacks the support of other political branches (Bruyneel). In Re Brown v. The Board of Education (1954), often referred to as “crown jewels,” is not enforced until Congress assists with its implementation (Rosenberg). Historically, the Supreme Court could not enforce their decisions alone prior to or after the prerequisites cases (1878-1909) suggesting that the court does not have any legitimacy or impact alone. While it was not Haney Lopez’s intention to study the impact of the court, it is necessary for the author to consider the Supreme Court’s power to avoid overstating the importance of a decision and centering his argument to an inappropriate degree on just two Supreme Court cases that may or may not be of

The third article to the United States Constitution concerns the judicial aspects of the federal government and how that branch of government must be executed. Although, the U.S. Constitution does not give that much of a detailed outline of how the courts shall be conducted. The Bill of Right, however, does have some say in the matter. In particular, amendments four, five, six and seven deal with citizens’ rights in the judicial system. “The judicial Power shall extend under this Constitution, the Laws of the United State, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority…” This is relevant in today’s society because it has evolved so much since the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified, they still hold significance

The Supreme Court is the most influential court in America. There are several significant levels of authority contained within it. The President of the United States appoints Justices into the Supreme Court. America is a grand and beautiful place, but that does not make it exempt from the cruelty of human nature. So the Supreme Court was established for the intention of making sure US Constitution, Federal Law, and US treaties are dealt with properly. If the Supreme Court was not in place in America, one could easily see that America would have a copious amount of unresolved national and state issues. Although the Supreme Court is to follow the Constitution and the rules within it, one cannot immediately assume that each court case is in agreement with the truths of the Bible.

“Roses are red, violets are blue, and at times, I like you.” This is a small, simple phrase at first glance. Based on an individual’s character, however, they may take it a different way. As the audience changes, so does the meaning. When it comes to interpreting the Constitution, the same principle remains. It is extremely difficult to interpret the U.S. Constitution, because of its complexity and fragility. Also, the fact is when time changes, people change. In other words, different generations have different interpretations of what the Constitution says that they can do. Which leads to textualism, causing the judges of the Supreme Court to decide whether they can make new laws, even though their true vocation is to interpret the laws. Textualism trials test everything. Since the Constitution was written in 1788, they figure that the Constitution doesn’t have the same meaning as it did back then. On the other hand, there are people who believe that the current laws of the Constitution should be interpreted the same way as the original. An example of textualism would be the Supreme Court Antonin Scalia, and the original Supreme Court Justice Stephen Boyer. So in this paper, I am comparing and contrast these judges’ arguments of textualism, to decipher which one is correct.

There is nothing controversial about saying, as Alexander Bickel did in The Least Dangerous Branch in 1962, “that judicial review is a counter-majoritarian force.” When one gives an unelected judiciary the power to declare null and void laws enacted by popularly elected representatives, there automatically exists the possibility that those jurists will rule counter to the wishes of a majority. To be sure, the existence of this judicial power creates fundamental problems in a constitutional democracy, and many forests have been felled in the scholarly quest to analyze those problems. As Bickel observed, the counter-majoritarian nature of judicial review is “the root difficulty” in the American judicial system. He also noted, however, that this force is an “ineluctable reality.” It is therefore misleading to argue that, “empirical studies of judicial review have consistently found that Bickel’s ‘difficulty’ does not actually exist.” The difficulty of which Bickel wrote did, and most definitely does continue to exist. Unpacking the socio-political factors that influence the way in which the “difficulty” manifests itself in judicial decision-making has prompted the aforementioned studies. However, those studies have never shown, because they never could show, that the “difficulty,” as Bickel defined it, “does not actually exist.”

Judicial tyranny was written by Sutherland M .in 2005. It is a revised edition. The book was published in June 1978. The essence of the book tyranny is when a judge takes who is no elected declares the laws and the constitution of the state to be null and void with an opinion clothed in the barest of legal precedent. Tyranny is the act of absolute power over something or people. Extreme severity or rigor is another definition of tyranny. Judicial tyranny, therefore, means that the judicial system is being manipulated or controlled by one individual or a certain group of people who are misusing their powers.

In the early years of the eighteenth Century, the young United States of America were slowly adapting to the union and the way the country was governed. And just like the nation, the governmental powers were starting to develop. Since the creation of the Constitution and due to the Connecticut Compromise, there is the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial Power. But the existence of those powers was not always that natural. In these crucial times, the Judicial Power had problems controlling the other powers. It was a challenge for the Supreme Court to exercise the powers granted by the new Constitution. The Federal Government was not generally appreciated and its formation also caused many disagreements and debates from early

Being able to elect judges to the bench provides judges to be more accessible to its citizens. This also allows for citizens to vote for a judge who share their own political and philosophical views (Souders, 2006), which can be beneficial to them. Partisan and non-partisan elections highly favour judicial accountability. Judicial accountability is where judges are held accountable for their decisions and actions, while also being accountable to its citizens both on and off the bench. According to Souders, “making judges directly accountable to the people allows the electorate to define the limits of acceptable judicial conduct, and promotes discussion about evolving standards of judicial conduct” (Souders, 2006). Accountability then creates a more democratic judicial system. This democratic judicial system allows for citizens to directly vote for the removal of a judge, and for a judge to be voted onto the bench based on a majoritarian vote (Souders, 2006). Both partisan and non-partisan judicial elections are beneficial to democracy, by promoting a more participatory democracy, meaning citizens participate in political decisions and policies directly. Unfortunately, a more participatory democracy impacts judicial voting pattern. Judges at the State Supreme Court level are a complete separate entity from all other levels of government in the United States due to the fact that they are elected into judicial position, but they are not independent from the citizens the court serves (Souders,

The assignment to read the article from the January 31,200, Richmond Times Dispatch, Carrico Ending 42 years on High Court allowed me to examine how far respect, courteous and professionalism will take you in life. Part two of the assignment for this present week required me to identify some ethical advantages and disadvantages of an appointed vs. elected judiciary. I was able to infer that appointed judges are more likely to be unbiased and impartial in their duties to the court and to the citizens they serve. Part three of the assignment for this week allowed me to become educated on the ethical advantages of having a mandatory judicial retirement age due to declining health and an increased lifespan of Americans. In order to understand why