Supreme Court Ruling And Straw Poll

In the case of Robert Tolan and Marian Tolan vs. Jeffrey Wayne Cotton, I will be discussing what interest me about this case. I will also deliberating on the liability and criminal liability of this case. The Tolan vs. Cotton case interests me because the United States have so many police that are brutalizing citizens. In some cases the police officers are getting away with it. After reading, reviewing, and studying this case I have learn a lot about the criminal system and laws that men and women should obey. I will explain how the nine judges on the Supreme courts all came to a verdict against the police officer Jeffrey Cotton after he shot an innocent suspect. This people

In this article, political implications are given emphasis. To begin with, the same-sex marriages lead to a democratic disrespect. Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized the point as he opposed the idea in the Supreme Court (Powell, 2015). Concerning the precedent round of litigation Hawaii, Rosenberg and Klarman’s source emphasis has been a significant negative legislative response in Congress and state capitols (Powell, 2015). Despite that, there were other bright electoral consequences as well. These electoral consequences were very but not entirely

The purpose of this research is to rationalize an amendment to the Constitution of the United States forcing Supreme Court Justices into a medical review to determine if the Justices are physically and mentally able to continue to serve their tenure. The focus is to create a half way point between two opinions in the very controversial subject of the Supreme Court Justices tenure. As the Judicial Branch becomes more active, citizens have questioned the rationale of justices serving for life, while others maintain that there is no need for change. The middle ground purposed is the establishment of a medical review of the justices and the hard part is establishing when they are medically unfit to serve. Considering the Constitutional purpose

As noted, the technical legal question to be addressed is whether the federal government or individual states have the right to legalize or prohibit same-sex marriage. To claim that this exact question is increasingly a public concern is to understate the issue. It may be ironic but, as the controversy has grown in recent years, there seems to be more of a demand from the society that the issue be settled once and for all, and for that eyes turn to federal authority. This came to a head in the presidential campaigns of 2013, as same-sex marriage became a “hot button” issue actually defining voter sympathies as either liberal or conservative (Levendusky 42). In plain terms, the Mitt Romney campaign directly appealed to conservative populations opposed to, or perceived as opposed to, gay marriage; the Obama reelection efforts not unexpectedly countered this with an appeal to more liberal factions, which typically favor same-sex unions. The differences in approach aside, the clear fact remains that the nation was emphatically looking to its highest leadership to make a decision, which in turn would lead to federal recognition or denial of same-sex marriage.

On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry. Many conservative groups do NOT agree with this decision. The gay marriage debate has been simmering for as long as I can remember. The four articles I have selected give information from four different perspectives including that of liberals, conservatives, homosexuals, and orthodox Jews. With so many differing opinions, one can understand why it's been so hard for the nation to come to agree on this issue.

In “Texas clerks could refuse to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.” (2015), Lauren Gambino states that Texas clerks can refuse to issue marriage license to same sex couples, they can justify their refusal on the grounds of religious liberty. Gambino supports her claim by providing factual evidence--including quotes from Texas clerks, which makes her more ethical, because she provides a neutral informative article on this matter. Gambino hopes to inform US citizens of what is going on in Texas, following the same sex marriage legalization by the Supreme Court, while enticing anger

The Supreme Court had to ultimately determine whether or not the Bakeshop Act of 1895 violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. After two days of oral arguments, the Supreme Court voted 5 to 4, in favor of Lochner. Hall and Patrick (2006) notes that Justice John Marshall Harlan was initially attached to writing the opinion of the court. However, Justice Harlan was unable to maintain a majority and, as a result, Justice Rufus Peckham wrote the majority opinion (70). Following the shift, the majority opinion of the Court found that the New York law was, in fact, unconstitutional for several reasons. Justice Peckham argued that the state’s use of police powers must be exercised “in a legitimate, fair, and reasonable way” (70).

Mike Huckabee strongly opposes abortion, and believes that it should only be legal when the mother’s life is at risk. In one case, he refused to allow a raped ten-year old girl to get an abortion. His reasoning for the case is this: “A 10-year-old girl being raped is horrible. But does it solve a problem by taking the life of an innocent child? And that's really the issue. There are two victims. One is the child; the other is that birth mother who often will go through extraordinary guilt years later...I just come down on the side that life is precious; every life has worth and value” (“Huckabee: With abortion, there are two victims”). Regarding marriage equality and gay rights, Huckabee also has a strong views about both of these issues. Appearing and supporting many anti-gay events and rallies, he solely believes that a marriage should be between one man and one woman, and even compared gay marriage-which he banned during his term as Governor-to polygamy. And “in a Facebook post, Mike Huckabee wrote, ‘If we are determined to change the definition of marriage to accommodate how people feel and what they wish to do because of their mutual consent, then we should immediately release those incarcerated for practicing polygamy or bigamy, and frankly, let’s make all consensual adult behaviors

I believe the Supreme Courts Citizen’s United Decision is unethical. The decision undermines citizens right to form a full opinion on political candidates, disregarding what is good for society. The theory of communitarianism is prevalent throughout this case acknowledging social justice, democracy, and liberty. After the Supreme Courts decision in 2011, citizens began to worry how the decision would affect the democratic election process. The book states, “Communitarianism focuses on the outcome of individual ethical decisions analyzed in light of their potential to impact society”(ME,14). By using communitarianism, the case’s evaluation of the Supreme Courts decision and its impact is easier to comprehend.

Judge Moore informed probate judges on the eve of the historical same-sex marriage decision that the federal ruling did not apply to them. Later on, in a separate ruling, it was ordered that the many of the counties that were holding back from marrying same-sex couples were to start issuing licenses to same-sex couples. Still Judge Moore says he stands firm in that while the court can authorize same-sex marriages but they cannot force a constitutional officer to disobey his oath by doing so (Elliott, 2015). Federal district judges held the law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman unconstitutional (Eastman, 2015). However, the United States Supreme Court met and ratified Chief Justice Moore’s stance.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Fourth Amendment). The text of the Fourth Amendment does not define exactly what “unreasonable search” is. The framers of the constitution left the words “unreasonable search” open in order for the Supreme Court to interpret. Hence, by looking at

Huckabee recently said in an interview that the Iran deal was going to march Israelites into the ovens. I feel like if Mike Huckabee had just said The Iran Deal is the worst thing since Chevy Chase got his own late night talk show he would have made his point with so much more style! But then again we are asking for style from a pandering wannabe televangelist who defends the Duggurs and wishes he could hang out in the local high school's girls locker room. Another pious snake oil sales man...you know the kind Ozzy warned us

This raises the question of how it became unthinkable to even think about supporting gay marriage, to how it became next to unthinkable to oppose gay marriage— all in the time span of a decade and a half.

Same sex- marriage is still the topic of many peoples conversation across the country. Citizens, divided by politic party, are very passionate about how they feel about it. The president didn’t approve of it at first, but now he finally accepts same- sex marriage, the Judicial System uses its power to dictate to the States, forcing them to accept same- sex marriage. Both houses of Congress continue to debate what marriage means.

State marriage laws are generally defined as the union between one man and one woman. However, a law is in the process of being passed in an effort to banned same-sex marriage. The senate must examine this law with the general appropriateness of the law and with strict scrutiny. The question is whether passing a natural law statute prohibiting same-sex marriage would be an appropriate legislative act? I will advise the senator based on Blackstone’s law of nature and its relevance to God. King’s how just and unjust laws affect society and finally Aquinas how unjust law should be rooted in eternal law.