The Challenge In Measuring Judicial Branch Preference Case Study

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

In Supreme Conflict, Jan Crawford Greenburg provides insightful analysis and assessment of the politics surrounding the Supreme Court appointment process of Justices during the Rehnquist Court. Despite having seven conservative nominees the Rehnquist Court was deeply disappointing to those conservatives hoping to reverse decades of progressive rulings on key social issues. Throughout the book Greenburg describes both positive and negative appointments and nominations such as Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas, and David Souter. Greenburg also includes some background on the impact the Warren and Berger Courts had on the Rehnquist and later Roberts Courts.

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

Polarization in the United States today exists on two levels: polarization in the electorate and polarization in the elite. While separate, these two groups are perpetually intertwined. Polarization in the electorate refers to the movement of voters toward ideological extremes, and the ideological gap between voters on either side has been increasing in recent decades (Kuo). A study conducted by Pew Research Center in 2014 confirms the proliferation of polarization in the electorate: it found that since 1994, voters agree more intensely with their party’s policies and view the policies of the opposing party as a “threat to the nation’s well being” (“Political Polarization”). One factor that has led to this increase is the utilization of new technologies by the media, which allow voters to access more information than ever before. This broad scope of available information allows the public to be selective in what they consume (Kuo). As a result, many people participate in confirmation bias, meaning they seek out sources that share their beliefs; this strengthens their preexisting opinions and their level of partisanship. Another factor that increases political polarization in the electorate is geography. Republican voters tend to live in suburbs or rural areas, while Democrat voters are more likely to live in urban areas (Kuo). These geographic boundaries impact polarization because

Based on the research of Justice Alito, he was appointed by former president Gorge W. Bush as one of the Supreme Court Justices on January 31, 2006 and is currently a Republican Party federal justice. His approaches to things are very unpredictable and distinctive from what he is viewed as. However, his conservative standpoint is still a part of his image. This paper will include: the background of the justice, the judicial philosophy he approaches, and his opinion on a dispute.

The response is clearly based on the question. However, although it contains the term “polarity” and some

Many consider the election of judges through a partisan system is beneficial to serve the public. Partisan

The attitudinal model means exactly what it sounds like, attitude. By this I mean that the judge makes a decision based on its personal beliefs and perspectives on the case. A conservative justice, like Clarence Thomas, may have a conservative approach towards the constitution when making a decision, while a liberal justice, like Sonia Sotomayor may have a liberal approach. The negative thing about the attitudinal model is that no one knows how the audience will react to decision he/she took. Some people may agree while others may disagree. While some people may think that this may be unfair, there is an even balanced between all 9 justices on whether they are liberal or conservative. Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas are more conservative, while Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer are leaned more to the liberal side of things (Martin). Justice Kennedy is usually right in between conservative and liberal. This is positive because it forms a healthy balance between the beliefs and ideologies within the 9 justices. The best example for attitudinal model is the presidential election case in 2000 of George Bush vs. Albert Gore Jr (Video

In order to understand the concept of political polarization one must first understand the meaning of ideology. Ideology is defined as “a manner or…content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture.”(Merriam-Webster) Voting based on ones ideology is considered a rather recent phenomenon. Prior to the rise of ideological based voting, candidates were selected and scrutinized based on their own personal attributes and characteristics rather than their ideas. Prior to the 1970’s, there was not a huge difference in ideology between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. For example, take for instance the House and Senate votes on the passage of the Social Security Act in 1935. In this vote both Democrats and Republicans were widely in support of its passage. (SSA) This is in stark contrast to today when neither party can agree on the future of Social Security. Another example would be the passage of the landmark Voting Rights Act

The following report reviews the book, “Courting Disaster: How the Supreme Court is Usurping the Power of Congress and the People” By Pat Robertson. The writing takes a hard look at the recent history and current climate within the United States Supreme Court. A great deal of the author’s work centers on the decisions that have taken place during Chief William Rehnquist’s time leading the highest court in the nation. Rehnquist was chief Justice during the infamous Bush v. Gore decision that sided with President George W. Bush resulting in Al Gore losing the election. The book also examines the political machine that determines whether a justice nominee will be appointed and in light of this process, how political control of the legislature

This creates a paradox for the reader. In a book designed to remove the impression of polarity, why single out specific subjects in this polarizing way? The logical conclusion is that these topics do have a specific effect on refuting the polarization claim. In the opening chapters, Fiorina et al. illustrate the perceived polarization of partisans, the war in Iraq, and a myriad of other factors like gun control (p. 1-75). With partisanship they found the issue to be a problem of “confusing positions with choice” (2011, p. 25) and thus dismissing the polarization of Americans. Analyzing he war in Iraq yielded similar results (p. 51-55). The authors found that when asked to judge broad statements, like Bush’s handling of Iraq, respondents answered in the partisan way, with more republicans supporting and democrats disapproving (p. 54). However, when the same people were asked to rate Bush’s handling of Iraq in terms of individual acts, the polarization faded (p. 52-53). While there were still dissidents and supporters, the divide was not along partisan lines but rather individual lines, evidenced by the near equal support of republicans and democrats for the use of military force overseas. All of this supports the argument that Fiorina et al. make throughout but provides no insight into why some topics are grouped

NPR’s legal affairs correspondent, Nina Totenberg, described a “horrible political storm” brewing over the Supreme Court of the United States (“CNN,” 2016, p. 1). While reporting for CNN, Totenberg used these words to draw attention to the untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia in an era of modern politics in which the court has become more polarized than ever. The Supreme Court, the highest court of the land, is not only being severely impacted by partisan ties, but is now also deciding cases according to these biased beliefs. The Democratic and Republican parties, after corrupting and encroaching upon the federal judiciary, have made court nominations and rulings into a game of party politics, inevitably destroying the impartiality of the

Studies conclude that citizens who tend to classify themselves as either conservative or liberal tend to have opposing political and policy views (p. 571). This means that social opinions alone does not have a significant or resilient influence in elite or mass polarization. This leads us to our next variable, partisan elections.

Determining whether justices should act according to the dictums of judicial activism or judicial restraint is difficult because both of those phrases have been very politicized in modern society. It is believed that any judge who does not follow conservative social policies is engaging in a type of judicial activism. For example, some early Civil

I believe that the judicial branch has the most power because they have the power to settle disagreements about the meaning of laws and decide if laws and the president decides if laws or action.