Roberts Judicial Interpretation

place between Robert Yates and Alexander Hamilton, who had very different views. Robert Yates’, an anti-Federalist and author of both Brutus no.11 and 12, main concern associated with the power of elected Federal Branches. Robert Yates opposed the ratification of the Constitution, and had been convinced that the federal judges would interpret the Constitution broadly, “so as to expand their jurisdiction and influence, and that Congress would be supportive of such loose interpretations because they

The Supreme Court is made up of many justices that believe in two different judicial philosophies. These two philosophies are that of judicial activism and strict constructionism. These philosophies differ quite a bit from one another, but they both work toward the same main goal. Both philosophies play a part in court cases when it comes to deciding on a final ruling. Judicial activism is a judicial philosophy that states that a court has the right to, and should go beyond what is stated in the

to move her vote along the political spectrum so long as the laws fit her interpretation of the Constitution Alternatively, Coyle (2013) also discusses Kennedy, whose political opinions appear to factor rather heavily into his judicial opinions. Of him she writes, “Justice Anthony Kennedy would assume the center position in most closely decided cases [...] he would swing to the left less often” (p. 60). The addition of Roberts and Alito to the Court only served to solidify the so-called conservative

Trying to pack the court is not a new concept, if it were not for John Adams court packing attempt we would not have judicial review. Some presidents back the court with an agenda in mind, Reagans appointment of Sandra Day O’Connor and Scalia to overturn Roe v. Wade, or ideologies such as Bush’s appointment of John Roberts a known conservative. Although, not ever president has a set agenda or ideology when they make appointments, some make more moderate appointments. President Clinton and President

Context The Court of Last Resort, the phrase in which the Supreme Court is associated in, declaratively has the final say in a judicial decision. This power vested in the court leads to many questions, mainly being should any court be given the final say. As the U.S government has many forms of checks and balances, the U.S Supreme Court is a critical one. The courts judicial review powers vested upon them, allows to review any law or act of congress deemed unconstitutional. This is form of final say

widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall

active one it will exercise less power. Judicially active courts court doesn 't focus on the exact wording of the constitution but instead on how it can be applied to the modern day society. Despite this the Supreme Court is still limited by the wording of the constitution itself, while the court is given options in interpreting it cannot categorically change it. For example while the federal government may want to change a number of aspects in America such as gun control they are restricted by the

May 6, 2015 Discretion of Judges in Regards to the Judicial Review When we started with Brutus and the Federalist, they were looking at different options that were relative for judicial review. An important aspect, that we must look at before we continue, is that even though the Constitution does not say that the court has judicial review, most people assumed from the beginning that it would be applied. This being said, if the idea of judicial review is allowed, then we have to accept two things

any ideology. Although contemporary politics surely has made the activist claim solely for liberals, some very conservative judges have used activism on the bench whenever desired. Claiming Justices as activist dates back as far as the start of Judicial Review itself. Chief Justice

Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee the right to marry for same-sex couples as one of the Constitution’s fundamental liberties. In this paper, I will be discussing the criticisms that Chief Justice Roberts makes against majority opinion, my agreement with his views of marriage as a fundamental right, Justice Thomas’s dissent of the definition of “liberty,” the