The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court Essay

While there are some weaknesses in Greenburg account of these justice’s nominations and appointments, she provides detailed accounts of the events of the notations processes. These accounts explain why the Rehnquist Court, despite having seven conservative nominees the Rehnquist Court was deeply disappointing to those conservatives hoping to reverse decades of progressive

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).

The author’s audience and objective that the book Judicial Tyranny the New Kings of America is directed towards, is specifically those interested in learning about the fallacies within our court

What is also interesting to note, is that the balance of power and who ultimately gets seated on the Supreme court is decided on Capitol Hill. Up until this point in the review, there has been very little discussed about how the legislature plays into the decision process of how the justices are seated (Robertson, 2004). However, as it is critical for a sitting president to have a Supreme Court sided towards the president’s political affiliation, it is equally as important to have a legislature that will also seek to have the nominee on the panel of justices. The author suggests, that this hope is quickly diminished when during the presidency, the legislature’s majority is the opposing party. The author does an excellent job in communicating this dynamic in reflecting on President Clinton’s attempt to have his justice nominees appointed during his time in office (Burke, 1993). The issues of getting nominees approved was also driven by a number of critical turnovers within the office of the presidency. This point underscores that lobbying is not limited to companies and organizations but to the power of the president to push justice nominations through the system (p.44). Finally, another aspect that was discussed that hindered the process was that President Clinton did not hold his ground and in each instance where he faced resistance, the president would remove the candidate presenting another with the hope that the new nominee would pass the nominee process

            Justice Jackson was not a strong supporter of the judicial review.  He wrote a statement in 1954 referring to the real strength of the Court.  Justice Jackson wrote “The real strength of the position of the Court is probably in its indispensability to government under a written Constitution.  It is difficult to see how the provisions of a one-hundred-and-fifty-year-old written document can have much vitality if there is not some permanent institution to translate them into current commands.”

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

In the first chapter he described the relief he felt from hearing Judge James Parker, the judge who presided over his case, admit that he was “misled by our government” (Lee & Zia, 2003). He described his “shock” at hearing Judge James Parker deliver such a sincere apology which said:

Bogira paints a portrait of some of the more personal and nuanced day-to-day activities that go into courtroom behavior and decision making. Describe some of the often overlooked aspects of day-to-day court operations (i.e., judges background, public pressures, defense attorney and prosecutorial ambitions, etc.) and how they may affect court outcomes for defendants. Bogira paints a portrait of the real side of the law and after reading Courtroom 302 I’m applauded at the things I’ve read. Bogira’s showed a different side to prosecutors, detectives, and judges detailing the little to no interest they had in righting the wrongs caused by the court.

On March 16, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to take Associate Justice Scalia’s seat. The Chicago native graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School and worked as a federal prosecutor for the U.S. Department of Justice. He played the lead role in the investigation and prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombers. Mr. Garland is not as conservative as former Associate Justice Scalia, he is more of a moderate. Also Mr. Scalia was well known for his argumentative style. This was illustrated quite clearly in his frequent and angry dissents of his colleague’s majority opinion. Conversely Mr. Garland works to unite and mold opinions to be unanimous. In his nineteen years on the United States Court of Appeals, he has only penned sixteen dissents. A former law clerk for Mr. Garland stated “From an early point in his tenure in the D.C. Circuit, Judge Garland has demonstrated an uncommon ability to identify common ground among his fellow judges, that he manages to do so without in any way sacrificing his core judicial principles is truly remarkable”

From enforcing traffic tickets to ruling on the legality of legislation passed by the Senate and Assembly, California’s court system plays an integral role in society. However, despite the massive influence the courts hold over the lives of all Californians, most know little to nothing about the way the court system operates. As an intern at the Superior Court of San Francisco, I came to realize how, even after taking multiple political science courses on laws and the judicial system, I only accumulated a shallow pool of knowledge on the inner workings of the court system. Talking with judges and attorneys and sitting in on court meetings did help me understand the judicial system in much more depth, but also brought up many additional issues I am interested in pursuing further.

For example, in the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought to expand the court and create a majority of Democrats, who, if appointed, would fervently support his New Deal program. Professor Gregory G. Caldeira (Ph.D.), in the Department of Political Science at The Ohio State University, argues in his article, Public Opinion and The U.S. Supreme Court: FDR’s Court-Packing Plan, that in this incident, there was indeed an “intimate connection between the actions of the justices and support for the Supreme Court…during which Franklin D. Roosevelt sought legislation to permit him to pack the high bench with friendly personnel” (Caldeira, 1987, p. 1139). Referring to the Gallup Polls of 1937, which showed that public support for the court substantially decreased in four months, he believes that justices tend to build up their relationship with parties in brief periods before appointment. He sardonically states that this phenomenon has become a “series of well-timed decisions” (Caldeira, 1987, p. 1141). Even though Congress eventually rejected Roosevelt’s “Court Packing” plan, Caldeira’s view demonstrates the drastic influence of the executive branch, and more broadly, party politics, on the high court. This particular case portrays that party politics are continuing to undermine the Constitution

I discovered how the Supreme Court came to be. I believe that the Supreme Court is overlooked because they make a lot of important decisions. I think that is disappointing that not many people in our country know any names of the people of the Supreme Court. At first their were six member now their are nine. I learned that when the Supreme court first started, they each had a geographical zone. Today, all citizens now go to the Supreme Court. I am skeptical that the Constitution is silent about exactly what the Supreme court is, what it should do, and how should they do it. In the Constitution it mostly mentions the House of Representatives. I think that Supreme Court is barely mentioned because at first it was underestimated and it was not

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,

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States. It has final appellate jurisdiction over all cases in the United States of America. Although it was provided for only briefly in the Constitution, it is an instrumental part of our democracy.