Unit 8 Assignment: Short Answer Question 1 Answer: Legal cases are generally decided upon when a judge applies the law to the facts of the case; however, the Constitution is ambiguous which means it can be comprehended differently. The way the Constitution is translated in today 's society and applied to modern laws is a responsibility that the Supreme Court justices must uptake. Many factors are believed to play a role in how exactly justices finalize and make their decision, which is why political sciences created three different models of judicial decision making. The legal model, attitudinal model, and strategic model help us grasp a better understanding of what may influence the decision making process. As stated earlier, some decisions are based on the law being applied to the facts, and this decision process is explained in the legal model. The legal model also expresses how justices, in addition to using facts and the law, can use information from previous and almost equivalent cases helping them determine their decisions. Unlike the legal model, the attitudinal model explains how justice’s policy preferences can influence their decision. This model shows how legal text of the Constitution could possibly be ignored, and instead the justices’ own opinions, just like politicians, would guide them through the decision making process. According to Unit 8 Video Engager, it is believed that the justices may take this approach due to the fact that they are entitled to a
Sesamware is a Japanese software company which is very popular for open source software. Sesamware got international approval with an online multiplayer fantasy dimension game, Para World in mid-1990. Para world was very popular in the world between 2001 and 2004. Firstly, it was installed as part of the bundle downloaded by hundreds of millions of gamers around the globe. The open source code helped to easily adapt every facet of computer life for all platforms and operating, networking, navigation and security systems.
It is often believed that the relationship between certainty and flexibility in judicial precedent has struck a fine line between being necessary and being precarious. The problem is that these two concepts of judicial precedent are seen as working against each other and not in tandem. There is proof, however, that as contrasting as they are on the surface they are actually working together to achieve one common goal.
The views of Scalia and Brennan of our common law judicial system are very oppositional. Justice Brennan is what is considered a non-orginalist and Scalia would be a considered the opposite which is, an orginalist. Both of them agree that interpreting the constitution is so crucial to our democratic system and to making laws. However, Scalia believes that judges shouldn’t have the power to interpret the constitution into common laws because it allows for too much bias in our court system. He believes it gives the courts too much power and that they don’t have the historical knowledge base to interpret the original intent of constitution properly. Scalia thinks that this job of interpretation of important amendments would be better left to historians then to lawyers. He does not think that judges should be allowed to create laws because they don’t know how to interpret the original intent of the constitution. Justice Brennan believes that the interpretation of the constitution into common law is for a federal judge, obligatory. And that it is the job of the judges to look at the cases presented to them and use their best unbiased judgment to interpret what outcome would be best for the public good. Justice Brennan says himself that when the justices interpret the constitution they don’t speak for themselves, they speak for the public. Scalia and Brennan basically disagree on how the text should be read and about what should be considered legitimate interpretation. There
Based on the research of Justice Alito, he was appointed by former president Gorge W. Bush as one of the Supreme Court Justices on January 31, 2006 and is currently a Republican Party federal justice. His approaches to things are very unpredictable and distinctive from what he is viewed as. However, his conservative standpoint is still a part of his image. This paper will include: the background of the justice, the judicial philosophy he approaches, and his opinion on a dispute.
Nevertheless, some critics argue that the judidicary, some critics argue that the judiciary are the final arbiters of what is meant by the principle of separation of powers, which therefore provides the judiciary with subordinate levels of power. Moreover Chief Justice Hughes concluding that the ‘Constitution is what the judges say it is’ due to ability to interpret the constitution. In America, although Congress may new laws affecting courts, ultimately judges decide.
In legal models, the judge makes a decision based on facts and laws without considering how the decision may impact public policies. They may also utilize previous cases that have similarities to the current case in order to make a decision. This is useful because they may interpret the Constitution from different points of views of other justices or judges which had to make a decision on a past similar case (Video Engager). The only downside to this model is the fact that judges make decisions without
When it comes to policymaking, the Supreme Court decides if laws are constitutional. Actions undertaken by the other branches of government recieve judgement through the power of judicial review. Ideology and judicial philosophies play an important role in judicial decision making, which in the end both informs and influences policy. Judicial decision making can be complex in ways that give certain weight toward factors dependent on the approach that justices take on the interpretation of specific laws and the Constitution.
Every Supreme Case that has taken place within the United States Judicial System has revolved around one crucial theme: the interpretation of Constitutional text; the very reason why the Judicial Branch exists is to interpret the Constitution that was written centuries ago. More specifically, Schechter v. United States, Yakus v.United States, and Mistretta v. United States focused mainly on the constitutional doctrine of the non-delegation of legislative
In the case of Anthony, a New Jersey resident and owner of a waste disposal company in the state of New Jersey, and his two business associates, Paul and Silvio, whom suffered severe injuries due to a motor vehicle accident caused by a negligent truck driver; they have great standing to sue against the neglectful driver and the company associated with the ownership of the vehicle. Regardless of the diversity of their residency/ citizenship, the affected party can proceed to sue the corporation responsible for the damages caused by their staff and property; reason being that they are protected under the Constitution’s diversity of citizenship, and the privileges and immunities clause. Furthermore, these two constitutional clauses in addition to the commerce clause, dictate the court that the matter needs to be brought to.
United States judge Irving R. Kaufman once said, “The judicial system is the most expensive machine ever invented for finding out what happened and what to do about it.” Over the course of the United States, the Supreme Court has decided issues which have a great impact on future generations. The leader of this court needs to have intricate understanding of the United State Constitution and judicial system. By holding many different roles in the judicial process,
The judicial branch plays many roles in interpreting the constitution and implementing public policy. As first order, the judicial branch has gain the powers, over the years, to declare laws passed by Congress unconstitutional and pledge them to be null and void. Judges from courts usually are strict constructionist, or they depend solely on personal ideology. If they do not base their court cases off of personal ideology, then they use previous cases which have occurred before. Judges try and find cases previous to those brought up and connect them in a special way. The connection allows them to have similar rulings. Doing so is called stare decisis. This ultimately allows them to refer back to old cases and their rulings, or establish a new
In the courts of the United States there are three different models of judicial decision making that the Supreme Court uses. Included are the legal model, in which the decisions are based solely on the provided facts on the case. (Mitchel) It can also choose to let previous case hearings and decisions influence the decision for the case at hand. An example would be Reno v. ACLU where the court ruled that the anti-obscenity law was to broadly written that it violated the first amendment right. (Mitchel) Another methodology used is the attitudinal model, where the justices can make any decision they wish without fear of losing their job due to their life term in the position. (Mitchel) A way of viewing this would be imagining a bench with a mixture of conservative and liberal justices, the way the judges interpret the constitution is based on their own ideologies, meaning that the conservative justice will interpret the constitution in a conservative way, and vice versa for the liberal justices. (Mitchel) An example being in the 2000 election, in which the fiasco of Bush’s victory in Florida ended up having to be hand tallied, the Supreme Court intervened and due to the five conservative justices ruling against four liberal justices, the court ruled that the hand tally should cease and that Bush should be elected President. (Mitchel) The final method of explanation is the strategic model, which states that justices make decisions based on they think their peers will vote, and
I agree with Dworkin on this because this idea of subjective decision-making and interpretation is evident in the American Legal Realism theory where rules (or law) are seen as insufficient to cover all different types of cases. Even though the theory of American Legal Realism believes in the above idea, it still believes that some laws do, in fact, cover certain cases and scenarios which allows for the direct application of the law and thus an objective approach to judicial decision-making and interpretation. Through this, we see that both Dworkin and American Legal Realism identify the balancing act between objective and subjective judicial decision-making and interpretation. Yet, both the theories of American Legal Realism and Dworkin strongly affirm the idea of a subjective aspect always, or often, coming into play when judges take part in deciding cases and interpretation.