The Current Makeup Of The Supreme Court

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 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,

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.

In the United States there are three branches to our national government. The Judicial Branch deals with upholding the law and at times interpreting the law. The Judicial Branch is tiered, having several levels of courts, of which the Supreme Court is the highest. The Supreme Court is composed of nine justices who are tasked with hearing important cases and reviewing, when the need arises, certain laws. The level of work, intelligence, and skill required of those who sit as justices in this court is demanding, and only the best can even qualify for the job. One current Justice is Sonia Sotomayor. Her life is the perfect example of how a justice should be.

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).

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

Justice Scalia has been recognized as the funniest justice in the Court, which in part has led him to become one of the most talked about Justices. Justice Scalia receives a great deal of attention from both his supporters and his opponents; Nino has attracted most of the public’s attention with his controversial opinions, mostly those in which he dissents on cases related to moral issues, such as abortion. It is no secret that Justice Scalia holds a conservative opinion on the vast majority of the issues that the Court hears; The Supreme Court Compendium reports that between the years of 1937 and 2006, Justice Scalia is the only one who has received a -1 value , in terms of the conservativeness of his opinions. Contrary to what one would expect, one of Justice Antonin Scalia’s closest friends and colleagues is Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who tends to vote liberal – they are friends, but they often vote differently. A recent study released by the New York Times reports that Justice Scalia votes with Justice Clarence Thomas 91% of the time, with Justice John Roberts 90% of the time, and Justice Samuel Alito 86% of the time. This is no surprise, being

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

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.

The Supreme Court of the United States did not apply sound reasoning in formulating their final opinion in Reed v. Reed. Even though, the Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous in ruling the Idaho statute unconstitutional because of violation to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The reason why I believe that they did not apply sound reasoning in Reed v. Reed is because the level of scrutiny applied. The Supreme Court applied the rational basis test instead of strict scrutiny. Commonly, when the Supreme Court applies the rational basis test to a law, the law passes because it can be proven that it is “rationally related to a legitimate government interest” . There was no precedent for this case because it was the first time that the Supreme Court heard a case on discrimination against women in violation of the Equal Protection Clause( 404 U.S. 71, 72 ).”

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.”

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.

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 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

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