Roberts Judicial Interpretation

Under the U.S. Constitution, this appointment is a lifelong position that will only be nullified if the judge resigns their post or dies in office. This creates serious contests within the partisan political environment found among federal representatives, for any candidate appointed to this post helps define the direction of the Supreme Court for the rest of their life. Thus, it is frequently believed that a president who appoints a judge to the Supreme Court is creating a legacy, helping to shape the direction of the laws for the country for a time long after their presidency has expired. This makes the selection of a judge a hotly contested process.

Today I was able to have a quick interview with the honorable Mrs.Salvarez. I asked her a few questions about what she does in the government and if she could clarify some things.

Partisan primaries result in judicial candidates who are dependent on special interests for their election and also tend to force candidates to affiliate with a political party.

There are two major factors that affect the confirmation process of a president’s nominees; one is party affiliation. Party affiliation is very important when the Senate is confirming a nominee, because Senate confirms nominees by a ⅔ vote. This could be very crucial to the president and his or her nominee, because if the majority of the Senate is part of the opposing party, this becomes difficult for the president to get his nominee confirmed. The second political factor is qualification to become a judge or justice. The Senate does not want an unqualified judge who does not know what he or she is doing. It is important to the Senate to approve someone who has experience in the judicial field than someone who has no experience at all. The

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

I will now examine some of last election year's results. Voter turnout has decreased in the past years. There are two main factors that have been coming up in the past years. First, many citizens say that who is elected in office is not as important as it once was. Secondly, younger Americans are more cynical and disconnected from politics than ever. I think there is too much information out there and another thing that might be the reason this is happening is because candidates insult other candidates with their campaign ads. This confuses the voter like I mentioned before and makes them not want to go out and vote. In the next paragraph I will discuss why I think judges should be decided by partisan vote.

In the book Just Mercy: A story of Justice and Redemption by Bryan Stevenson, there are several topics discussed regarding the American Justice system. One of those many topics discussed is regarding how a person’s race, social status and income, may influence the outcome of a court trail. In present day America, many years after the era of Jim crow and segregation the Justice system still seems to be more lenient towards white Americans, especially those with high income and a good standing in society. The American justice system has become unjust in the trials deemed to be fair, due to an evident prejudice against minorities, their social status and whether or not they receive a well off or poor income.

What is also interesting to note, is that the balance of power and who ultimately gets seated on the Supreme court is decided on Capitol Hill. Up until this point in the review, there has been very little discussed about how the legislature plays into the decision process of how the justices are seated (Robertson, 2004). However, as it is critical for a sitting president to have a Supreme Court sided towards the president’s political affiliation, it is equally as important to have a legislature that will also seek to have the nominee on the panel of justices. The author suggests, that this hope is quickly diminished when during the presidency, the legislature’s majority is the opposing party. The author does an excellent job in communicating this dynamic in reflecting on President Clinton’s attempt to have his justice nominees appointed during his time in office (Burke, 1993). The issues of getting nominees approved was also driven by a number of critical turnovers within the office of the presidency. This point underscores that lobbying is not limited to companies and organizations but to the power of the president to push justice nominations through the system (p.44). Finally, another aspect that was discussed that hindered the process was that President Clinton did not hold his ground and in each instance where he faced resistance, the president would remove the candidate presenting another with the hope that the new nominee would pass the nominee process

Supreme court decisions are largely based on the political standpoint of the justices that serve. As of right now, there are currently three liberal justices, two moderates, and four conservatives. Having an unequal balance of justices who belong to a political view results in decisions that are made from the biases of the justices. Conservative justices often agree with conservative plaintiffs and the same goes for liberals. Typically the two sides will strike down cases from opposing sides. Some even say the Supreme Court leans towards making liberal decisions. It is no surprise that justices tend to vote depending on the group in which the speaker belongs to. Liberal and conservative judges also support cases that relate to their own group’s interests. All of the bias leads to unfair

NPR’s legal affairs correspondent, Nina Totenberg, described a “horrible political storm” brewing over the Supreme Court of the United States (“CNN,” 2016, p. 1). While reporting for CNN, Totenberg used these words to draw attention to the untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia in an era of modern politics in which the court has become more polarized than ever. The Supreme Court, the highest court of the land, is not only being severely impacted by partisan ties, but is now also deciding cases according to these biased beliefs. The Democratic and Republican parties, after corrupting and encroaching upon the federal judiciary, have made court nominations and rulings into a game of party politics, inevitably destroying the impartiality of the

The Supreme Court ruled announced their ruling on June 28, 1978 but there was not a majority opinion. Four major justices, Rehnquist, Stewart, Burger, and Stevens, voted against the minority admission program for all school because it violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The other four justices, Marshall, Brennan, White, and Blackmun, voted that the affirmative action is acceptable within certain areas. However, the plurality opinion was given by Justice Powell. This gave the ruling a 5-4 in favor of Allan Bakke. Powell gave his opinion that the using racial quotas as the deciding factor of one’s admission was violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, affirmative action is permissible by Universities but only if used alongside with other factors. This meant that Universities had to discontinue their quota system for minorities and that UC Davis violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Under these circumstances Allan Bakke was allowed to attend UC Davis.

After a monumental decision from the US Supreme Court on June 26th, 2015 in favor of a bill legalizing nationwide same sex marriage, the first official same sex marriage license in Cleveland was granted to Chris Richardson and Keith Garrett, a couple stating that they had been together for 18 years. At 12:30 pm the same day, the marriage was performed by Judge Anthony Russo, marking the first legal gay marriage for the city and signifying a major step towards equality for all people.

Yet the elective system gives the judges political party a stronger voice to be heard and lets their party viewpoints stand out to the public that vote them into office. However, in today’s elections more judicial campaigns are getting costlier and they are digging

The Supreme Court, an unelected body concerning the electorate (they are voted in by Congress), has just chosen the president of the United States, the most powerful man in the world has just been chosen by nine unelected judges who were slightly conservative; this is very politically active and this would indeed support the notion that judges are politicians in disguise.

Subsequently, judges have a pivotal role within the judiciary system not only to cover all the different aspects such as criminal and civil law. They also have to interpret the law, make decisions and deliver judgment on the case before them. More importantly they have to keep aside all biasness and their personal views aside. On the contrary that is not the case, due to the lack of diversity in the judiciary, which is dominated by the stereotypical