POLISCI Ch 9

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

What did the appellate court rule? Did it agree with the trial court (affirm) or disagree (reverse)?

Vote: 7/2. Justia Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the court. In which Rehnquist, C.J joined and White, Blackmum, O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter Joined. Steven J. filed an opinion in which Marshal J. joined.

In composing the choice, John Marshall contended that demonstrations of Congress in strife with the Constitution are not law and in this way are non-tying to the courts, and that the legal's first obligation is dependably to maintain the Constitution. In the event that two laws strife, Marshall composed, the court bears obligation regarding choosing which law applies in any given case. Consequently, Marbury never got his

Legal cases are generally decided upon when a judge applies the law to the facts of the case; however, the Constitution is ambiguous which means it can be comprehended differently. The way the Constitution is translated in today 's society and applied to modern laws is a responsibility that the Supreme Court justices must uptake. Many factors are believed to play a role in how exactly justices finalize and make their decision, which is why political sciences created three different models of judicial decision making. The legal model, attitudinal model, and strategic model help us grasp a better understanding of what may influence the decision making process. As stated earlier, some decisions are based on the law being applied to the facts, and this decision process is explained in the legal model. The legal model also expresses how justices, in addition to using facts and the law, can use information from previous and almost equivalent cases helping them determine their decisions. Unlike the legal model, the attitudinal model explains how justice’s policy preferences can influence their decision. This model shows how legal text of the Constitution could possibly be ignored, and instead the justices’ own opinions, just like politicians, would guide them through the decision making process. According to Unit 8 Video Engager, it is believed that the justices may take this approach due to the fact that they are entitled to a

In the Marbury Vs. Madison’s case Justice John Marshall represented the case and I strongly believe that his points were solid and worth to be granted true and rational. John Marshall’s argument is that the acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution are not laws and therefore are not progressed into law to the courts, and ultimately the judicial boards’ first responsibility is always to practice and to make firm of the Constitution.

“Their present decision is equivalent to a repeal of law and the making of law. This is not adjudication, it is mere usurpation. It is the substitution of mere arbitrary will in the place of the solemn and responsible functions of an impartial judicature.”[1]

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.

In this case, the judges decided that a court, either state or federal, is required to appoint an attorney to

Against this factors are; Chief Justice John Roberts emphasize on the SSM as being a democratic disrespect, judicial putsch by associate justice Antonin, inextricably linked by justice Samuel Alito and many other factors. Thus, it is essential to consider the actual changes in the opinion count resulting from a decision and the political backlash to adequately determine the relationship between the Supreme Court’s decision and the public

favor. The case had yet again been appealed, and this time the Supreme Court is

A landmark case in United States Law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States,

The Supreme Court Justice at the time, Justice Harry Blackmun, delivered the majority opinion of the Court with Justice Marshall, Justice Powel and Justice Brannan amongst those who decided the majority opinions. The concurring opinions of the case were filed by Justice Burger, Justice Douglass and Justice Stewart and lastly the dissenting opinions given by Justice White along with Justice Rehnquist. During the course of issuing their various opinions, the Lord Justices used different types of topoi including historical, textual, doctrinal, prudential, structural, and ethical topoi (Bobbitt, 1981). Topos is, in simpler terms, a standardized method of constructing or treating an argument. In deciding or ruling on the merits of a case, the facts

(Oyez, 2016) In that case held by the state, a majority opinion by Justice Harlan that even

Judicial Review is the power given to the justices of the Supreme Court in which judges have the power to decide and interpret whether a law is unconstitutional or not. Chief Justice John Marshall initiated the Supreme Court’s right to translate or interpret the constitutional law in 1803 following the case of Marbury v. Madison, which declared the Supreme Courts as the main interpreters of the constitutional law. Marbury v. Madison became one of the most significant Supreme Court decisions in U.S. history. Many historical philosophers would find some difficulty in visualizing a government set up to limit the power of itself, but others would argue that this form of government best work for the people, and not against them. The remedy of the Constitution by the Supreme Court as a living document that is able to be translated differently over time for the good of the people has as many skeptics as it does supporters. But, if we do not allow the Supreme Court to translate the Constitution who then, should the people chose to do such an important job. In this research paper I will discuss on how judicial review will help newly create constitutional courts to gain independence.