Supreme Court Missing Cases

“The Warren Court’s decision to expand federal habeas corpus helped fuel the criminal justice revolution of the 1960’s” (Stephens & Scheb II 2012,2008,2003). Habeas corpus is Latin for “you have the body” and the writ of habeas corpus is a “judicial order issued to an official holding someone in custody, requiring the official to bring the prisoner to court for the purpose of allowing the court to determine whether that person is being held legally” (Stephens & Scheb II 2012,2008,2003). For example in the case of Fay v. Noia (1963) a prisoner appealed to a federal district

“Their present decision is equivalent to a repeal of law and the making of law. This is not adjudication, it is mere usurpation. It is the substitution of mere arbitrary will in the place of the solemn and responsible functions of an impartial judicature.”[1]

Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on October 5, 2011, the late Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Antonin Scalia expressed his conception of American exceptionalism. Based on the perspective of an originalist, Scalia believes that judges should strictly adhere to the Constitution. He utilizes a chauvinistic tone in order to effectively characterize the United States as an exceptional country built upon a gridlock of laws through the separation of powers. Scalia’s influential speech compels opposing judges to adopt his conservative ideals.

In his book Courting Disaster: How the Supreme Court is Usurping the Power of Congress and the People, Pat Robertson discusses the conflict of the Supreme Court abusing their power. This includes conflicting notions with the Constitution. He discusses the original intention of the Supreme Court as well as what it is like today. Robertson’s writing is a very accurate depiction of the struggles that America faces in the power of the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has overstepped their boundaries when considering the will of the people.

A landmark case in United States Law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States,

In the book Courting Disaster: How the Supreme Court is Usurping the Power of Congress and the People, it sets out to identify how our government has changed and how these changes affect us and our laws. Pat Robertson wants the people to see how the Supreme Court is abusing power. Robertson shows how the federal judges are not only abusing their power but reaching beyond the power they are given. Thomas Jefferson once cautioned that, “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions” are “a very dangerous doctrine indeed” and “one that would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy” (Robertson, Courting disaster: How the supreme court is usurping the power of Congress and the people, 2004).

Manifesto sees the decision of the supreme court as “clear abuse of judicial power” (1).

To reiterate, these cases reinforce our founding fathers vision, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Each of these cases brings are nation closer and closer to the fruition of their dream for the nation.

The authority of judicial review recognized by Marbury has allowed the court to result revolutionary alteration in our sympathetic of constitutional supplies. This power hasn’t unpredictably, haggard both censure and praise over the court’s antiquity, but it has never been a supremacy totally beyond the jurisdiction of the other divisions of government. Since the President’s authority to appoint and the Senate’s authority to approve Supreme Court Justices to the infrequent great efforts of constitutional alteration, the court remains resolutely entrenched in our Constitution’s system of checks and balances. Meanwhile judicial review has certified that the Supreme Court’s justices, once established, have adequate power to apply their individuality from the political divisions and apply constitutional bounds on their powers. The Court’s power in constitutional clarification rests in part on general

Atop twenty-four Corinthian columns at One First Street in Washington, D.C., lie a promise to our nation, four words: “equal justice under law”. These words, abundant with virtuous intentions, are the parameters of jurisprudence that the Supreme Court must apply when considering its cases. A founding principle of this nation, seen in documents as early as the Declaration of Independence, and affirmed through the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution and the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments thereto, promotes the idea of equality in justice and blindness to the individuality of the litigant. This idea is central not only as a function

Concurrent Justice Antonin Scalia begins his opinion pointing out the fact that these petitioners bring their “case” to the Court, crying that their sentences are violating the Eighth Amendment, despite being cruel and unusual themselves. “They were charged by a sovereign State with murder. They were…tried twice, once to determine whether they were guilty…and whether death was the appropriate sentence…And now, acknowledging that their convictions are unassailable, they aske us for clemency, as though clemency were ours to give” (Justice Scalia,

United States judge Irving R. Kaufman once said, “The judicial system is the most expensive machine ever invented for finding out what happened and what to do about it.” Over the course of the United States, the Supreme Court has decided issues which have a great impact on future generations. The leader of this court needs to have intricate understanding of the United State Constitution and judicial system. By holding many different roles in the judicial process,

These circumstances included air craft highjacking; treason; murder for hire; murder of a judicial officer, policeman, or fireman in line of duty; and murder by a person with a previous record of violent crime. This decision made it clear that the justices did not consider the death penalty per say to be “cruel and unusual punishment” in the sense intended by the constitution.” (Davis, 196-197). The justices reaffirmed what an unbiased historical and legal analysis would reveal every time that our forefathers were not against Capitol Punishment but against the misapplication of punishment bringing about injustice.

In the case of judge Creppy decision, the reader feels that his ruling was unjust do to that fact of the situation during the terrorist attacks. His decision to the reader was based upon emotions, however the reader does not believe his intention were for anyone to be abused and mistreated in anyway. Yet his ruling did affect the life of others. The IG report found a variety of negligence of the detained immigrant after September 11th that ranged from verbal and psychical abuse inadequate protection for lawyers and social visits. I trust that there are many cases that are held in secret and that the government denies it because it will costly to them. This case was a long legal battle that involved the United State Supreme Court with the question

The United States Interaction with the International Court of Justice Over Consular Rights: How Our Refusal to Obey Is Impacting Foreign Nationals and American Citizens