The Current Makeup Of The Supreme Court

The position of the Supreme Court in American society is quite simple: to interpret the Constitution and settle case disputes with the limitations that are binded by our law. While one perspective of the debate states that the court is unbending in their ability to make policy, while the other claims that the court breaks free from these limitations that are binded by our law and are politically dynamic in nature.These are known as The dynamic court and the constrained court are two alternative constructions of the role of U.S. courts in producing significant social reform (Rosenberg, 1991). The balance of these two views rely on the interaction between doctrinal,

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.

The United States judicial branch to the general American public can seem insulated from politics, because of their adversarial system, that does not allow judges to choose their cases. The judicial branch unlike, their two counterparts, the legislative and executive at large rely on the respect of the American people and the heads of the two other branches. In appointing members of the federal judiciary, Presidents appoint members who resemble their political ideologies and their likelihood of confirmation in the Senate, the Senate confirms these members based on their performance on the litmus test and Senatorial courtesy. Courts, specifically the Supreme Court, make decisions based on the Constitution, but the legislative branch has the

“Presidents come and go, but the Supreme Court goes on forever,” declared by past President William Howard Taft. Dated in 1789, the Judiciary Act by signed by Congress, which was demanded by the United States Constitution. This past principal court was ruled by a Chief Justice and five Associate Justices, accordingly today we still have a Chief Justice, but we currently have eight Associate Justices. The current Supreme Court has John G. Roberts, Jr. as Chief Justice, and the following are the current Associate Justices: Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr., Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Clarence Thomas, a conservative, best known as the second

This allows the executive branch to determine the makeup of the judiciary branch, and through it exercise power over the legislative branch. Because the men and women appointed to the Supreme Court remain there for life, with no public elections to possibly remove them, a president can affect politics through his choice of appointees for decades after his time in office has ended (Romance, July 29). But this, too, is limited by the Congress as the president’s judicial appointments are subject to the consent of the Senate (Landy and Milkis, 289).

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.

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 Supreme Court of the United States, also known as the highest judicial body in the country, leads the federal judicial system. The Supreme Court is made up of the Chief Justice and eight other Associate Justices. With presidential nomination, these judges are on the Court for life and have the most important cases to deal with in their jurisdiction. Our current makeup of the Supreme Court consists of Chief Justice, John G. Roberts, Jr., having

Supreme court decisions are largely based on the political standpoint of the justices that serve. As of right now, there are currently three liberal justices, two moderates, and four conservatives. Having an unequal balance of justices who belong to a political view results in decisions that are made from the biases of the justices. Conservative justices often agree with conservative plaintiffs and the same goes for liberals. Typically the two sides will strike down cases from opposing sides. Some even say the Supreme Court leans towards making liberal decisions. It is no surprise that justices tend to vote depending on the group in which the speaker belongs to. Liberal and conservative judges also support cases that relate to their own group’s interests. All of the bias leads to unfair

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States and they oversee cases that directly affect the rights of the citizens that follow them day in and day out. The cases that the supreme court handle range from domestic and foreign policy ,to gun laws, health care, immigration, homeland security, education, crime, and many more. The Supreme Court ensures that whatever case comes before them that they ensure the citizens the rights granted to them under the constitution. In order for this to occur there are nine justices that decide on case that affect the states to keep the judicial system as up-to-date and inclusive as it can? One of these justices is Sonia Sotomayor, this associate justice is the women I chose that interested me most on how she got to become a justice and the views she agrees or disagrees with.

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

There are three women on the Supreme Court, one of whom is Latina, and there is one black justice serving on the Supreme Court (Brown, 2016). This is a major issue. The United States, the “melting pot”, has an extreme lack of diversity in their court system. This is an issue that affects several aspects of society. Decisions made by judges will affect the lives of men, women, and their families. The decisions made by judges can also create law. Unlike political officials, the people do not always have the power to vote judges into their positions. Instead, the people hope that their peers with the power to affect the system choose a candidate that will fight for them. Often times, this does not happen.

The Justice recently commented that, "We're not as diverse as some would like in many important characteristics, educational institutions, religion, places where we come from" (Liptak 2016). The Supreme Court Justices graduated from just three different Ivy League law schools, no one is a Protestants, and only but one comes from a coastal state, with the majority coming from New York & New Jersey (Liptak 2016). This was not always the case. Supreme Court Justices used to come from more varied professional backgrounds (Liptak 2016). Some were governors, lawmakers, cabinet members, law professors, practicing lawyers, and state court judges (Liptak 2016). As late early Seventies, former federal judges were in the minority. Now, less than a decade on the Federal bench is a negative. With the variety and complexity of modern cases, it would be difficult to deny the contributions diversity can have on society through the Supreme Court. The background, experiences and personal opinions that undeniably factor in deciding cases cannot all be taught in Harvard and

The judicial branch is one of the most powerful branches in the usa besides the legislative branch but the judicial branch has the ability to have the president confirm if they take or leave the Supreme Court Justices are chosen by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and serve for the rest of their lives, as long as they practice “good behavior.”

In David Kenny’s article ‘Merit, Diversity, and Interpretive Communities: The (non-party) Politics of Judicial Appointments and Constitutional Adjudication’ he argues that judicial diversity may result in a broader interpretation of the Constitution. Kenny’s article analysed the political nature of judicial appointment and the impact it may have on Constitutional interpretation. Furthermore, the Kenny argues that if the interpretive community of judging was more diverse, it would eventually lead to more interpretations of the Constitution. I agree with Kenny’s view, for example, if diversity among the judiciary is lacking it is probable that ideas and perspectives will remain narrow within the interpretive community. As a result, this paper