Supreme Conflict Chapter Summary

The United States president, Barack Obama, nominated a longtime federal judge Merrick Garland to take the position of the Supreme Court and replace the former justice, Antonin Scalia. Merrick Garland’s past decisions related to different issues had made him the talk of the town. Although Garland has a 19 year record on the U.S. court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, this does not lend him to a fast evaluation (Mcshane).

Peggy Noonan, on February 18, 2016, wrote “The Court, Like the Country”. She wrote this article to explain about how the president should change his mind on replacing Justice Scalia. She also talks about how the Justice Antonin Scalia disputes in 1992’s wide-range abortion decision, Planned Parenthood v Casey. Scalia believe that this will end the troublesome era in the history of our Nation. The latest Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ended his dispute in Obergefell v. Hodges. It was a decision based on same-sex marriage in 2015. She felt that half part of the country or maybe more was conservatives. The decisions that people disagreed, Scalia was able to help.

When Associate Justice Antonin Scalia perished in Texas from natural causes, the focus was on the storm of controversy that was sparked by the now vacant space on the highest court in the nation, rather than the great tragedy of an honorable and long-serving government official passing away. While this does paint a sorry picture of our nation's focus on who has the power rather than individual's happiness, the altercation caused by the urgent, important, and pressing question of who should appoint the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and who the next Associate Justice should by is in many ways essential to what our country's main policies become in the next fifty years. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the senate majority leader and thus

The way supreme court nominees have talked about their own legal philosophy and paper trail has really changed in the last three decades. Famously,

In 1986, the 15th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Warren Burger, informed President Ronald Reagan of his decision to retire. Reagan’s first duty was to fill the role of Chief Justice, which he did by appointing justice William Rehnquist to Chief Justice. Now Reagan was tasked with nominating a justice to replace Burger’s seat in the Supreme Court. According to those who were involved in the decision, it came down to Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia. With Warren Burger leaving the Court, it meant that the Court would be balanced with four conservative justices and four liberal justices. This placed even more importance on Reagan’s decision to nominate a justice who would often times be making the deciding vote. Reagan needed to nominate a

I believe that we need statesmanship on the Supreme Court. Statesmanship is developed in the hard knocks of a general experience, private and public. Naturally, a man occupying the post must be competent in the law—and Warren has had seventeen years of practice in public law, during which his record was one of remarkable accomplishment and success, to say nothing of dedication. He has been very definitely a liberal-conservative; he represents the kind of political, economic, and social thinking that I believe we need on Supreme Court. Finally, he has a national name for integrity, uprightness, and courage that, again, I believe we need on the Court (Cray,

During his early years on the Court, despite the presence of three other Republican appointees, Rehnquist was often the only dissenter, espousing a view of states' rights and limited federal judicial power that many regarded as outmoded.

As politics roar between foreign policy, presidential campaigning and for a while now the vacant seat from the late Anthony Scalia, we can see opinions from both parties for and against the filling of the seat for many reasons. As the US nation, wide spreads the presidential campaign, we see many viewpoints, drawing in from all over for the nominee pickings in November, with not a large choice in the presidential race we see much of the fighting rebelling against the vacant seat too. With politician's voice suggesting that the people have a choice of who fills the seat, while the president and congress have other thoughts, has created a large split between the houses, while the Supreme Court is equally split to figure out how to unequally figure

This responsibility for the Senate to vote for the next Supreme Court justice must be handled well. If the Senate neglects this duty or does not handle it with the proper care, the outcome could be devastating. In order to do this well, the Senate must correctly interview and probe this nominee’s life. Correct opposition and debate must occur in order to find an appropriate

There are several factors that influence Supreme Court decision making, many of which fall into two categories of influence: political and legal. Demonstrated in the attitudinal model, a judge’s attitudes are often shaped by their political background, and the views of their peers. A judge’s party affiliation is a political factor that influences their judicial decision making. The Court’s policy of adhering to Stare Decisis or legal precedents and their dedication to interpreting the original intent of

All the justices loved Rehnquist. When he went into the hospital in 2004 due to thyroid cancer, they knew he was dying. Even so, Rehnquist did not want to retire from the Supreme Court. He still wanted to be involved He even made an “unsteady journey” to administer the Oath of Office to President George W. Bush. Even though he was away from the court building, he still listened to tapes, cast votes, and made assignments. With Rehnquist gone from the building, it was up to O’Connor and Kennedy to avoid controversy because they were Rehnquist’s beneficiaries.

Abstract: Throughout learning about politics in the United States, the judiciary sticks out as the branch that does not represent the American people. Supreme Court Justices are not elected into office and they also serve life terms. This paper will not argue that this should not be the case, but it will argue that this furthers the disconnect between politicians and the electorate. It will give a brief history of the Supreme Court and then argue that in recent years, especially since the establishment of the certiorari pool, that the Supreme Court has furthered disconnect. This paper will also discuss the different ways justices vote, big cases in history, and how much power a Supreme Court justice really has. It will look into how the ideology of the court changed over the past two hundred years and how it has led up to the current situation we are in today with the death of Antonin Scalia.

Senators should analyze the experience, the qualifications and most importantly how their nomination would affect the balance of the court. In 1991, senators and the public flooded Capitol Hill with telephone calls and telegrams, the Senate voted 52 to 48 in favor of Thomas. Eleven Democrats joined 41 of the 43 Republicans in supporting him (Jr.Apple, 1991). Thomas Clarence did not have much experience nor qualifications as a judge which contributed heavily on his rating by the ABA. The balance of the court is an essential aspect as well. When Thomas filled the vacancy for Marshall the court’s liberal justices were declining which gave the advantage to the conservatives (Dowd, 1991). The court became more balanced with confirmation of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993. A senator should not vote solemnly on a nominees’ political views or their qualifications, it should be a compilation of both.

There are many factors that complicate to analyze this issue. First, it is hard to separate a justice’s political preferences from his or her judicial philosophy.

Article III of the Constitution of the United States vests judicial power in “one supreme Court”. With incredible adaptability, the Constitution has stood the test of time. Largely due to the limited specificity as to the application of its words, the Constitution has allowed the character of the Court to be historically defined by the individuals who have held the position of “Chief Justice of the United States”. The ideology and individual Constitutional interpretation of each Chief Justice has changed both the influential power and message of the Court. Earl Warren, Warren Burger, and John G. Roberts, Jr. have all successfully been appointed to the Court as Chief Justices. And although the Constitutionally proscribed process of