Supreme Court Judgements

The American Supreme Court is the highest court in the country. The Supreme Court has the final say in issues that have been brought to lower court’s but have been unresolved. The job of the Supreme Court is to determine if the Constitution says what the end result of an issue should be. The Supreme Court was designed to be unbiased and make it’s choices purely based on what the law says. The nine people who are appointed to the Supreme Court are called Justices. They are elected to their position for the remainder of their life or until their resignation. As a result of the tenure given to a Justice spots do not open up often at all. The President nominates the Justice based on a few factors. First off experience is required. Many of the Justices where judges in a lower court such as the Court of Appeals or had a very well respected private practice. Secondly the President often nominates someone who shares his own political ideology. If the President is a conservative it is likely that he will appoint a conservative judge to the Supreme Court. Lastly gender and ethnicity have recently become a factor in a Presidents decision. Up until 1967 all of the Justices had been white males to fix this problem Lyndon Johnson appointed Thurgood Marshall the first black Justice. Later Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Connor the first female Justice. However a presidential nomination is not enough to be a Justice. The nominee must be confirmed by the Senate also by a majority vote.

Injustice is a concept that can be defined as the violation of the rights of others, or the unfair action or treatment of an individual. Society in particular sees unjust actions all the time, and most people would even go as far as describing society as biased. Sometimes, there are specific instances that occur that can teach society as a whole a lesson of righteousness and justice; and in this case, these instances are landmark Supreme Court rulings. The Supreme Court of the United States is a powerful judiciary decider that can grant justice to someone who is in desperate need of protection. The Supreme Court cases of Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education and Roper v. Simmons have

Established in Article III of the United States Constitution, The U.S. Supreme Court is the only federal branch that is comprised of non-elected members. The President with the advice and consent of Congress appoints Justices. The court adjudicates cases that arise through U.S. Constitutional issues U.S. laws and treaties, interstate cases and cases where a state itself or the U.S. is a party in the case. The Supreme Court has both original and appellate jurisdiction. That is, the court hears cases that originated in the Court itself and cases that have passed through other, lower federal courts with one party finding reasons to appeal. The court interprets the Constitution as it applies to a case, and it attempts to make a decision that most benefits the society of the time. This interpretation stands as the law until the court itself reverses it and deems it unconstitutional. The court has immense power and influence on the country and public policy. Consequently, the justices that make up the court, as individuals, heavily influence public policy. The court has seen as little as six and as many as ten justices serving at one time, including a Chief Justice. Often viewed as the embodiment of the court, the Chief Justice 's personality, judicial outlook and intellect can mold the courts image in public opinion and set the tone for what decisions are made and how.

The United States has had its system of government since 1789, but how it works is not clear to all of its citizens. Some think the president controls everything and makes all laws. Others say that Congress is the most powerful. All think the Supreme Court is a court. But in this essay, all questions and doubts will be solved.

This paper will argue why Chief Justice Rehnquist’s quote on the ever expanding authority of the Supreme Court of the United States is an accurate depiction of the social adoption of a third legislative branch. Through the power of judicial review, the Court has been granted legistoral authority that was not constitutionally delegated to the Court, and with this new authority the institutional practices of obtaining a seat will be examined. This questioning stems from the fact that a court of nine unelected citizens have similar legislative authority of those elected to seats of authority in the Executive and Legislative branch. Yet, while this may be deemed undemocratic, it will be made clear that the institution of an unelected Court is essential to preserving the Constitution in a way that a democratically elected court is not possible of doing. While the Court has been adapted in a way that varies from the founders’ intent, it is evident that the citizens of the country have adopted the idea of a more legislative court, and that the preservation of this new Court is essential.

The United States Supreme Court holds about 100-150 cases each year. Most of the cases they hear are dealing with constitutional rights and federal laws.

These source texts address the enduring issue concerning checks and balances by relating our undemocratic Supreme Court with democracy. These issues clearly reflect how prescient our founding fathers were in generating a set of founding principles enabling posterity to grapple with new and evolving situations that could not have been foreseen in the context of the times when our founding documents were written. Luckily, our system of checks and balances is closely aligned with democracy, and in most cases, provides useful direction in resolving the tension between the old and new issues. The argument that the Supreme Court is undemocratic is well supported because Supreme Court justices are appointed for life and because

The United States of America has a very complex system of government through the use of checks and balances. The system we have in place allows for the three branches of government to control one another so that one branch could not be the most powerful. What makes the judicial branch different is that the decision brought by the Supreme Court is the final say and cannot be overruled. Along with that the election process for the legislative and executive branch is brought to by the use of a vote while those of the Supreme Court appointed by the president. The process of becoming a Supreme Court justice seems rather undemocratic and the power given and terms served also seem undemocratic.

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Biloxi H.M.A., LLC formerly d/b/a Biloxi Regional Medical Center and now d/b/a Merit Health Biloxi (the “Hospital”), by and through undersigned counsel, and files this its Response to William Kennerly, M.D.’s (“Kennerly”) Rule 59 Post Judgment Motion (the “Motion”), and would show this honorable Court as follows.

In the summer of 2015, history was made in the hallowed halls of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court had made, with a 5-4 majority, a controversial ruling decreeing that denying equal recognition to same-sex couples was in violation of the Equal Protections Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Those on the minority cited concerns of judicial restraint, the connection between marriage and procreation, and whether or not marriage is a Constitutional issue in the first place. Nevertheless, equal recognition for same-sex couples became the law of the land.

The Supreme Court does not have set terms. They usually stay in Supreme Court until they die or retire. The Supreme court is important because they are the top court, they deal with the constitutional and unconstitutional things, and involve others.

In United States constitutional law, substantive due process allows courts to protect certain rights deemed fundamental from government interference, even where procedural protections are present. The Courts have identified this protection from the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. In the Fifth Amendment it says “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces…” While the Fourteenth Amendment says, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privilege or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property

The polarized politics of the Roberts Court article examines the Roberts Court and its relationship to the Obama’s government after the results of midterm elections in 2014. It starts by analyzing the structure of the Court during the past 40 years. The court has been structured by electoral politics and it has been seen to be more conservative, divided and polarized in its decision-making and this reflects the politics of the post-1968 electoral regime. The article also looks at the impact of the 2014 midterm election. The article shows that the control of the senate by Republican will lead to constrain to the president’s ability to shape the federal courts proceeding (Clayton and Salamone 739). There is likelihood of the Republican leaving the composition of the current Supreme Court intact and also leave Justice Kennedy as the pivotal swing vote. It will also elevate the Court as a campaign issue in the coming 2016 presidential elections.

A court precedent is earlier cases that have similar issues. Each court decision is based on an earlier decision in court from previous years. To show that constitutional rights have been violated, courts point to good court decisions in earlier cases and describe how the facts in those cases are similar to the facts in that particular case. They have to show how the general principles of constitutional law presented in the earlier decisions apply to the situation. Today, all courts are essentially bound to follow earlier court decisions. For example, if a state Supreme Court issues a decision, all lower courts are bound to follow that decision. (Siegel, Schmalleger, and Worrall, 2014) Quite naturally times have changed since most of the decisions

It is arguable that the current system of appointment judges into office that have been in use for a protracted period of time has done a host of ills to the citizenry of United State of America. It’s a system that should be restructured for it to serve the purpose of justice for the good will of Americans. As an overview, the system that is in use has giving the sitting president a wider berth of nominating the judges that will be given a go ahead by the senators. Tushnet (2009), this system is enshrined in article two of American constitution that states that the president “shall nominate by and with advice and consent of senate shall appoint the judge.” This is the blueprint of how the American supreme judge comes into