Supreme Court Justice

Justices Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito made up the majority of the court with the opinion founded upon the assertion that DNA testing is a comparable method of identification to fingerprinting and photographing arrestees. Justice Anthony Kennedy, wrote the opinion of the court, “sits at the court’s ideological center and joins the court’s four-member liberal wing about a third of the time when it divides along partisan lines.” As a Republican, this makes him stand out as he actively resisted the kind of political polarization faced by the court. Kennedy’s swing vote is important in the consideration of our formal and informal actors in the courts decision as he, and the other justices, are considered the formal actors.

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

There has been a big increase in the number of unanimous decisions i.e. 9-0, and the liberals and conservative has been unted in upholding first amendment rights-(Riley vs California 9-0 that police require warrants to saech cell phones) (Mcullen vs Coakley 9-0 buffer zone around abortion clinics are unconstitutional) but on the more contentious cases the 5-4 split showed a political divide

The current Supreme Court membership is comprised of nine Supreme Court Justices. One of which is the Chief Justice and the other eight are the Associate Justices. The Justices are Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., and Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr.

Yet courts and those opposed are only interested in what gerrymandering looks like on the outside not the dangers of partisan gerrymanders.

In the beginning years of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court was a struggling institution due to the lack of effectiveness of the Chief Justices and was not highly regarded by the executive and legislative branches of the government. The third Chief Justice in only twelve years, John Marshall put an end to the Supreme Court’s lack of influence after his appointment by President John Adams in 1801. John Marshall was the most influential Chief Justice of the Supreme Court because he was the first to make it a just and effective establishment that was equal to the two other branches of government by his court rulings and policies.

Thomas was like Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the fact that he defaulted to being silent. He rarely spoke in oral argument. The rare occasion when he did speak he spoke his extreme views “Thomas was engaged in a lonely, often solo, effort to restore the Constitution in Exile, the world of the Supreme Court precedent before 1937.” (Tobin 117) Because of Thomas’s extreme views, Chief Justice Rehnquist rarely assigned the majority

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.

They allude to the unanimous 9-0 decisions the Supreme Court has made as a strong indication that the court remains neutral. Chief Justice Roberts also recently stated at a Boston law school: “We don’t work as Democrats or Republicans” (Savage, 2016, p. 1). Moreover, Justice Scalia, when defending his conservative vote in a 5-4 ruling, claimed: “’I prefer not to take part in the assembling of an apparent but specious unanimity’” (Kuhn, 2014, p. 3). However, decisions become unanimous only when the ideological stakes are not large enough. As for extremely controversial topics, nearly every single recent 5-4 decision has been divided perfectly along ideological lines. The conservative majority, praised by Republicans, has unbelievably struck down major parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, upheld an individual’s right to own guns, and has allowed unlimited corporate spending in campaigns (Kuhn, 2014). These types of decisions have caused the divided Supreme Court that we have today. Looking at a more psychological and scientific perspective on this overall issue, an investigation by Anna Harvey and Michael J. Woodruff of the New York University found that the direction of decision and vote of the Supreme Court is frequently contaminated by confirmation bias; justices seeking out facts and reasoning that

Many senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy numerous times in the past few weeks. My response is that the judicial role is one in which judges and justices must apply the law, and not make it. Judges and justices have a limited role and these members of the judicial branch should have humility, recognition that we operate within a system of precedent, and be as open as possible in the decisional process with colleagues who are striving to ensure fairness and equality in the constitutional rights for the individuals in America.

There are oblivious things in life that restrict us, they are called rules. Nobody prefers to play a game by the guidelines, but there are reasons for them to exist. The purpose is to maintain the fairness of the game. And for that reason, we have professionals like, umpires, referees, and justices who help to maintain the integrity of these procedures. Nobody pays to watch the umpire in a ballgame, but they are needed to enforce the rules. Similarly, a justice is needed to aid a nation comply by the rules. Comparably, Chief Justice John Roberts (Roberts) of the United States Supreme Court is an outstanding example of that. In this article, the author explains why Roberts makes decisions the way that he does even though they are considered constraints by many. The decisions made by justices should be unbiased and non- sympathetic to a particular political party or else the political system will suffer.

Earl Warren was a politician and eventually a renown jurist. He served as the 30th Governor of California and the 14th Chief Justice of the U.S. As the 14th Chief Justice, he was in charge of the Warren Court, now known as one of the most liberal courts in the history of the U.S. Warren led landmark decisions like Brown v. Board of Education, Gideon v. Wainwright, Reynolds v. Sims, and Miranda v. Arizona that strengthened the power of the judicial branch to be in par with the other two branches. Warren and his court desegregated public schools and other public sectors, defended the rights of the accused, banned in-school prayers, and instated ‘one man-one vote’ rule in voting districts. Warren’s dedication in desegregation showed how he succeeded in keeping all segregation cases unanimous. Warren, appointed by Lyndon B. Johnson, headed a panel known as the Warren Commission to investigate President Kennedy’s assassination. Furthermore, Warren, during his time in Court, nationalized the Bill of Rights to all states. Moreover, Warren and his Court in the landmark case of Griswold v. Connecticut, established and protected the right to privacy.

John Paul Stevens served as associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1975 until his retirement in 2010. Throughout his judicial career, Stevens exercised a liberal view in the courtroom and often displayed judicial restraint to the United States Congress. Justice Stevens was appointed by President Ford in 1975 because of his judicial experience and personal confidence. While serving as Associate Justice, Stevens provided opinions on many subjects including the death penalty and affirmative action. Before serving as Justice of the Supreme Court, Stevens founded his own law firm and gained an expertise in anti- trust laws. Due to his successful legal career, Stevens was able to gain recognition allowing him to be nominated as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

Unlike the other branches of government, the Constitution is largely silent on judicial qualifications and the nomination process of judicial appointments other than stating that justices should exhibit "good behavior" and are confirmed with the “advice and consent” of the Senate. Thus, tradition largely dictates judicial nominations and the nomination processes that follow. The need for a judicial appointment can occur when a sitting justice dies in office, choses to retire because of old age or for disability reasons. Clare Cushman in Courtwatchers provides examples of other justices in the past resigning to pursue other political ambitions. During the nineteenth century, some justices “had no qualms about campaigning for political office, either secretly or openly, while still on the bench” (pg. 229). Chief Justice John Jay is a prominent example of political ambitions when he was elected governor of New York. Others have stepped down to pursue peace like Justice John H. Clarke did when left in 1922 to lobby the United States to join the League of Nations.

Toobin’s book not only provides a vivid narrative history of the court’s recent history but also gives the reader an intimate look at individual justices, showing how personality, judicial philosophy and personal alliances can inform decisions that have huge consequences for the entire country. Toobin discuss a case that shows a division among the supreme Justices which I think is a great example of decisions that have huge impact on Justices stare decisis, precedent, and protection of individuals rights when he mentioned in his book the discussion on considerable detail Planned Parenthood v. Casey. A 1992 case in which Justices O’Connor, Souter, and Kennedy wrote the controlling opinion. The opinion did not overrule Roe v. Wade, but did substitute an “undue burden” analysis in place of “strict scrutiny” when reviewing any abortion