The Justice System: The US Court System

The courts play a huge role in the criminal justice system. The dual court system of the United States (U.S.) was established through the U.S. constitution. The court systems have a multiple purposes and elements of court. Federal and state court system is what makes up the dual court system of the U.S. Today the U.S. court system is what it is today because of previous legal codes, common law, and the precedent it played in the past. Making the U.S. court system a vital role in the criminal justice system..

Courts are established social, political, and judicial institutions necessary for the manifestation of justice and the maintenance of law and order. The courts are part of the judicial branch of government, as outlined in Article III of the United States Constitution. Courts are the arenas in which the law is tried and applied. Judges are the presiding officers of the court. The United States Supreme Court is the most fundamental court because has "the authority to decide the constitutionality of federal laws and resolve other disputes over them," (United States Courts, 2012). This is true even though even though the court does not expressly enforce that law; enforcement is the province of the executive branch.

From the years of 1953 to 1969 the Supreme Court was historically known as the Warren Court. The Warren Court is named after the Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren who is famously known for cases such as Brown v. Board of Education, Fay v. Noia, Mapp v. Ohio, Sherbert v. Verner, and New York Times v. Sullivan. “Earl Warren 's name has become the shorthand for a jurisprudential shift from state toward federal authority; the Warren Court offered an expansive understanding of the role federal courts could play in enabling access for a host of new claimants seeking an array of rights” (Resnik 2012). Earl Warren’s court and jurisprudence is best known for cases on expansion of federal habeas corpus, expansion on the law of criminal procedure, expansion on free expression and exercise of religion, and desegregation public schools. All three played a pivotal role in the Supreme Court and the judicial system.

Even some who approved the broad measures resulting from Warren Court rulings were troubled by the idea of a court, whose members were appointed for life, being allowed the power to actively change society. They argued that the court's job was to decide on the constitutionality of existing laws, and they felt that the power to change laws was only held by the Congress, whose members were

When Warren began as Supreme Court Chief Justice,32 one of the early cases he faced was the very controversial Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka case,33 which presented the issue of whether "separate but equal" facilities for different races violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as previously allowed by the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson.34 Before Warren's appointment, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Fred Vinson was very divided on whether to overrule Plessy.35 However, under Warren's leadership and persuasion, the Supreme Court delivered a unanimous decision in overruling Plessy and finding the belief of "separate but equal" unconstitutional.36 Warren faced public outrage, including impeachment efforts, particularly from the south, where such cases were most prevalent, due to the unpopular Brown decision.37

Chief Justice Earl Warren joined the courts right amidst a standout amongst the most imperative issues, racial isolation in government funded schools. His commitment to racial fairness still stands as a demonstration of his part as an uncommon pioneer. Racial isolation was by all account not the only thing that the Warren Courts affected; it ensured individuals ' first Amendment rights and also blended up criminal method. The Warren Court extended social equality, common freedoms, legal force, and government power. Chief Justice Earl Warren could accomplish more than generally presidents.

In what ways is the indigenous justice paradigm in conflict with the principles of the traditional, adversarial American criminal justice system? In what ways do the principles of Native American justice complement more mainstream correctional initiatives?

The Warren Court was one of the most consequential in American history. It changed the american society by expanding civil rights and civil liberties in many important ways. With civil rights, the Warren Court 's biggest decision was Brown v. Board of Education. That decision ended legal segregation and helped set the Civil Rights Movement in

Hodges concluded that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of a person protected by the Constitution. The Court has long afforded the right to marry constitutional protection. But the standard test for identifying a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause is that the right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition (Washington Post)”. However, the majority opinion went further to find that “the liberties implied within the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause have stretched to certain personal choices central to a person’s dignity and autonomy, including their intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs (Washington Post)”. Using this idea, the majority opinion concluded that the liberty interest to marry extends to same-sex couples. The ruling has helped gay rights advocates fight more than a hundred and fifteen pieces of legislation that were introduced in state legislatures that were targeting gay people. The majority opinion agreed that the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change. “In addition to clearing the way for same-sex marriage nationwide, Friday’s decision may help end discrimination against gays and lesbians in other matters, such as adoption and custody rights, legal experts say (LATimes)”. Gay couples can now have no problem matters when wanting to start a family because of the great decision made by the Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in the United States v. Windsor, which struck down a federal law denying benefits to married same-sex couples, and exactly twelve years after his majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down laws making gay sex a crime.“In all his decisions Justice Kennedy embraced a vision of a living Constitution, one that evolves with societal changes (NYTimes)”. Kennedy makes a great point that the generations before wrote and ratified the Bill

Discrimination laws have been put in place to protect the rights of women and colored people and has changed the way people look at discrimination. Colored men went from being slaves to being able to register to vote and becoming the President of the United States. Women went from not having a right to vote, join the military, or count as a person because they were considered one with the husband to being able to be their own person. The possibilities are endless for women and colored men now. Women and colored people have had to work extraordinarily hard and face abnormally difficult challenges to get where they are at today, but in some cases the equality protection rights are still not what they should be and the rights become disregarded

(Originalist v. Activism Interview) Instead of defining the constitution based on the context and values of the world the Framers knew, judges must decide cases based on the social conditions of future generations or how society’s views are going to evolve throughout time. (Originalist v. Activism Interview) Justice Kennedy did just that. He concluded his opinion in Obergefell by describing marriage is a profound union and that the nature of marriage “embodies the highest ideals of love”. Although the statements made by Kennedy were not really relevant to the core legal issues in the case of Obergefull v. Hodges. Since that was the case, how could the decision of a landmark Supreme Court case that was decided on mere judicial opinion be considered a significant decision of the US Supreme Court when analyzing Constitutional History? It can’t. Obergefell v. Hodges was not decided with legal precedent, but instead it was decided on mere judicial opinion.

The overall basis of the case Obergefell V Hodges has to do with two men by the name of James Obergefell and John Arthur and these two men filing a lawsuit to challenge the state of Ohio and its refusal to recognize the fact that the two were in a same-sex marriage and that it should carry over to the death certificate. The two married in Maryland in 2013 where it is legal. Mr. Arthur, suffered from an illness that eventually took his life two months after litigation began. Due to the laws in Ohio, and

The role of Supreme Court of the United States in respect to these cases is to protect our civil rights by overturning laws that violate the United States Constitution. It’s unsettling to me how the opinions of these nine people can swing the ultimate law one way or another depending on their interpretation of what the framers wrote.

The United States court system is the institution were all the legal disputes in the american society are carryed out and resolved. However, one single court is not enough to resolve every single dispute in society and that is why the court system is made up of two different courts, the federal courts and the state courts. Moreover, the federal and state courts are made up of several divisions made to handle legal disputes differently depending on its seriousness. For example, the state court is made up of trial courts of limited jurisdiction and probate courts were cases and disputes originate and then move up to trial courts of general jurisdiction, intermediate apellate courts, and courts of last resort respectively depending on the case.In contrast, the federal court consists of district courts, territorial coutrs, tax court, court of international trade, claims court, court of veterans appeals, an courts of military review which then move on to courts of appeals respectively and may ultimately end up in the United States supreme court. In addition, cases from state court may also appeal into the federal court system but not the other way around.

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.