The Judicial Branch

The role of the Judicial Branch of the United States has been the most dynamic throughout the Nation’s history. By adopting the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the Supreme Court established its position as being arguably the most powerful branch of Federal Government. However, this also made the Judiciary’s role the most controversial. Should the Court be required to interpret the constitution strictly through the language it contains? Does the Court have the right to overturn morals legislation? Through analyzing court cases like Lawrence v. Texas, one can gain insight on the role of the Supreme Court and how it fits within the confines of the United States Government.

The federal government, as you know, is made up of 3 branches. The three branches of government are legislative, executive, and judicial. According to page 197 in the history textbook it states, " Our national's judicial power resides in 'one Supreme Court' " this is known as the judicial branch. What the judicial branch does, the political significance of the judicial branch, and the relations with other branches are all important things to know about the judicial branch. The judicial branch is crucial to our government because it can declares actions of legislature unconstitutional.

The Judicial Branch is the balancing factor of the Government. It is the listener of the people of the US and it decides on all matters regarding the people. It "interprets the nation's law" (World Book 141). Being able to interpret the law gives the Judicial branch a special kind of power. One of which the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch do not possess. The Judicial branch decides when a law has been broken, to what extent, and how to punish the criminal act. And that is what makes it the strongest branch.

The Third Article of the United States Constitution set up the Judicial Branch. Section One of the Article set up the Judicial Branch with “one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” It also stated that the judges in the Court can only hold office in good behavior with a compensation that is unchanging at anytime in the Court. During their time in office, that is. The Second Section of the Constitution brings to mention the fact that the power that the Judicial Branch has goes to anyone. All cases brought under the Constitution of the United States of America are seen in Court. It also talks about criminal cases having a trial by jury. This not including impeachment trials. The

The political cartoon analyzes the branches of government using football as a metaphor to show checks and balances that limit the power of the government. Furthermore, checks and balances work for the U.S. government because powers are delegated to each branch and the checks allow for equity among the branches. In the cartoon, the legislative branch and the executive branch are playing against each other while the judicial branch is the referee. In document one, Congress has the power to write laws, but the president can veto the bills that Congress proposes. Thus, the powers balance out the branches’ powers, which keeps them in a tight line of what they are allowed to do. Also, the President appoints judges, but Congress can reject them. They

In this chapter, the question of if judicial independence is being undermined is asked. Attacks upon activist judges is a recurring theme in the United States. Various judges are attacked across the state for the decisions they make. In an adversary system, a judge’s decision often fails to find favor with the losing party. These losing parties normally label the judge as and “activist”. This means that the judge had made an unpopular opinion. There has been many examples of judges being subject to the attacks such as when Justice Penny White was voted off the bench because she voted in a death penalty case to grant the defendant more leeway. These attacks on judges can have a harsh impact on the judicial independence. The American Judicature

There are times when areas of government are operating improperly and the judiciary must step in to be able to return it to order. These instances are often met with controversy as people are dismayed by the branch overstepping its traditional boundaries. Despite this discomfort, it is always better that constitutionality and order be reinstated than people gain comfort in their unlawful actions and decisions. Examples of these instances of judges stepping forward to get these areas back on the correct path include the Boston busing situation and the reforms in the Oakland Police Department.

A. The first step in the legislative process is the introduction of a bill to Congress.

The Court established from Aguliar v. Texas (1964) and Spinelli v. United States (1969), the Aguilar-Spinelli test determined whether an informants’ tips or letters could be used as probable cause to obtain a search warrant. This two pronged test established that [1] the tip had to “reveal adequately” the informant’s “basis of knowledge”, [2] the tip had to “provide facts sufficiently establishing either the veracity of the affiant’s informant, or, alternatively the ‘reliability’ of the informant’s report. The anonymous tip did not meet the Aguilar-Spinelli test which was proved not credible for two reasons. [1] The Principal received an anonymous tip that ‘one of her students’ was distributing condoms to students during lunch break which was in violation of school policy. The anonymous person did not specifically state that Bradley was the person who was distributing the condoms and also did not provide any description of the person was provided to the

The United States judicial branch was created by the founding fathers to help protect the rights, freedoms, and privileges of the citizens. Protection is achieved by the judicial branches’ power to approve the constitutionality and interpretation of laws. By interpreting the laws and constitutionality the judicial branch is exercising their power of judicial review. When exercising the power of judicial review judges either choose a role of judicial activism or a role of judicial restraint. This paper will include the debate of whether judges in the United States should be activists or restrained when interpreting and determining the constitutionality of laws.

Hamilton discusses the powers of the judiciary in the Federalist papers essay no 78. He asserts that the judicial arm of the government is the least likely to threaten liberty and property of the citizens. Part of this assertion was brought about by his conviction and beliefs, that the judiciary was the weakest branch of government. The constitution spells out three branches of government which are independent of each other and perform different roles to the benefit of citizens. This document also spells out the checks and balances that help in regulating the three branches. For the judiciary, however, its nature of the roles makes it weakest. It also means that the role that judiciary plays in ensuring justice is meted upon every individual in the country makes it the least arm of government that can threaten individuals’ political rights.

There are many different reasons a person can find themselves in a court as the defendant.

The Supreme Court provides for an interesting branch of research as the Justices are unelected by the people in a democratic society. The President will appoint the Justices based on a variety of reasons, party loyalty, legal background, ideology, and more, then will be either approved or not approved through the Senate. However, despite the public not having any direct choice in Justice picks, the public still holds a high level of support for the judiciary branch. The federal courts and the Supreme Court often do not face adversary from the public, and their case decisions are usually accepted by the people. This is due to a variety of reasons, explored in this research. Due to these theories and this phenomenon, I ask if the Supreme Court has the ability to change public opinion? Through a multi-layered methodology process, I will explore if this is possible and the impact that this will have on future research, while also supporting legitimacy theory and salience theory.

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.

Disagreement is the core of our democracy. It fuels Congressional debates which set forth policy, leads to passionate debates between presidential candidates, and ultimately allows people with different ideas to unify under one government. Separate from these ideological differences and massive arguments, supposedly, is the court system. In the views of a constrained court, judges don’t make laws, they only enforce their rules in compliance with the Constitution. However, as is clearly evident in the court case Windsor v United States, the Constitution in itself is vague, complicated, and often open to interpretation. In effect, the United States’ courts revolve around applying very few concepts to thousands of disputes. As the