The Current Makeup Of The Supreme Court

Should Supreme Court Justices Continue to Serve for Life? There is an open seat in the supreme court. Since the death of justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016, President Barack Obama has attempted to appoint judge Merrick Garland to fill this vacancy. However, the currently Republican U.S. Senate has refused to act on the nomination. This is not the first time the Senate has disagreed with the president's choice of nominee. The Senate confirms just around eighty percent of the president's nominations

New York University, which was published by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, attempted to determine the impact of judicial elections on judge’s decisions. This observational study collected data from the State Supreme Court and other empirical studies searching for similar information. (Berry 2015) The author found that during election years elected judges are more likely to engage in controversial rulings, and are more likely to deliver harsher punishments. (Berry

Supreme Court Justice Nominations      According to Floyd G. Cullop, The Supreme Court is responsible for “interpreting a federal, state, and local law and deciding whether or not it is constitutional,” making The Supreme Court of the United States perhaps the most powerful branch of the Federal Government. Although the Supreme Court does not make the laws, the justices do review the laws and decide if they are Constitutional. In fact, over the course of a justice’s tenure

Article VI clause 2 of the Constitution establishes that the federal government is the supreme law of the land (Heritage). States governments are bound and held accountable by the supreme law. In the event of a conflict, the federal Constitution is supreme over state law (Heritage). The supremacy clause is important in strengthening the country and its objectives but Texas is known to challenge the supreme law of the land. States are granted the right to petition the federal government

Tushnet's A Court Divided By R. Anastasia Tremaine - February, 2005 Tushnet's A Court Divided Tushnet (2005) takes an insightful look into the current Supreme Court and what it means for the future in his work entitled A Court Divided. Much has been discussed about the Court, particularly since the 2000 election ended up being referred to the judicial branch of government. Constitutional law has always been fascinating subject, as it broaches the areas of guaranteed legal protections

The Supreme Court, which does overrule its precedent from time to time, does not need to do a lengthy analysis of each precedent’s viability in every case. Rather, through its certiorari jurisdiction (certiorari – an order by which a higher court reviews a decision of a lower court), it selects cases and issues that allow it to reconsider precedent on its own time. When the Court decides that a previous decision may be in jeopardy, it often asks the parties to brief whether precedent should be overruled

1. The issue before the Supreme Court on the case of Roe v. Wade was on abortion. In august 1969 a single pregnant woman based in Texas wanted to get rid her pregnancy through an abortion. But her doctor denied the request on a reason that it was against the Texas law. Then Jane Roe identified by the media as Norma McCorvey sued her doctor for refusing to abort her baby she sought legal help and filed against henry wade, district attorney for Dallas County, Texas. Jane Roe argued that the law of

The Supreme Court’s Power Struggle over the Abortion Debate Beginning with the 1973 landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court has consistently guarded the abortion rights of women in America. Abortion advocates have praised the decision for decades, and it has become a staple, however controversial, of American law. Throughout the following decades, various cases reached the Court that forced it to reconsider its decision, and Roe v. Wade was always upheld. This changed in 2007 with

The U.S. Supreme Court and the Fourth Amendment Since the founding of the American Democracy, partisanship has always been a major problem when it comes to political aspects of the law. The Constitution was designed to implement laws into our country that would make our governing body run smoother with fewer conflicts. However, when dealing with Democracy based on the “people’s word” it is hard to avoid such conflicts. Since each citizen in our country has the right to freedom of speech and thought

They decided current solutions should not only be an attempt to stop the cause, but to aid with the effects. India’s Supreme Court has decided to propose private hospitals specifically for victims of acid attacks. They are to be provided food, rehabilitation, and medical treatment to meet their needs (Sinha). Along with private hospitals, the court had also ordered for the treatment to be completely free. It’s to make up for the