Essay on The Role of the Judiciary

Judicial activism and judicial restraint are two opposing philosophies when it comes to the Supreme Court justices' interpretations of the United States Constitution; justices appointed by the President to the Supreme Court serve for life,and thus whose decisions shape the lives of "We the people" for a long time to come.

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.

The United States judicial branch to the general American public can seem insulated from politics, because of their adversarial system, that does not allow judges to choose their cases. The judicial branch unlike, their two counterparts, the legislative and executive at large rely on the respect of the American people and the heads of the two other branches. In appointing members of the federal judiciary, Presidents appoint members who resemble their political ideologies and their likelihood of confirmation in the Senate, the Senate confirms these members based on their performance on the litmus test and Senatorial courtesy. Courts, specifically the Supreme Court, make decisions based on the Constitution, but the legislative branch has the

The United States government consists of three main branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Within the contents of this essay, the judicial branch will be examined. The judicial branch of the United States government oversees justice throughout the country by expounding and applying laws by means of a court system.1 This system functions by hearing and determining the legality of such cases.2 Sitting at the top of the United States court system is the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of the United States encompasses the federal judiciary, explicitly the judicial branch. This court is comprised of life-long serving Justices who are selected by the President of the United States and approved by the Senate.3 Cooperatively,

The main role of the courts is to interpret and apply the law. In terms of a criminal justice process the court serves as the place in which a trial is heard and a sentence decided.

The Federal Court System is one of the most essential and significant functions to help settle a matter. Much work is involved in the application of a body of rules and principals of rulings. The path the Federal Courts have to take in order to be heard by the Supreme Court is a lengthy process. Given millions of disputes every year, it becomes impossible for the Federal Courts to be heard by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has jurisdictions that limit the variety of cases that are clearly defined in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has developed specific rules that within the jurisdictions will and will not hear. The Federal Court must show they have extreme and substantial evidence in the outcome of the case. In mootness, the Federal

     It is nearly impossible to avoid politics during the appointments of high profile positions; therefore, the idea that Supreme Court is above politics when referring to its appointments is giving to much credit to that entity. The appointments of the Supreme Court, as with any political body, correlate no only to the media's portraying, but also to interest group the President wishes to appease.

For this criteria I will be producing a written evaluation of the effectiveness of magistrates and juries in the administration of justice in the English legal system.

The debate between Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint really grabbed my attention. Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint are two different ways to interpret the constitution and its laws. Both interpretations have their own strengths and weaknesses, which is why it is so hard to come to a final decision of which is acceptable and which is not (in most cases). While at the debate I didn’t realize how many cases have boiled down to these two concepts. There have been many cases ended up being decided by both interpretations.

When it comes to the United States, (U.S), the majority of the American people love their seconded amendment rights. As stated in the textbook, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System by J. Scott Harr, Karen M. Hess, Christine Orthmann, the second amendment of the United States Constitution, for the most part, protects the U.S. citizens rights to “keep and bear arms” (Harr, Hess, Orthmann, & Kingsbury, 2015, p. 167). That being said, each state in the U.S. will vary in their firearms laws. For instance, some states make it easier for their residence to purchase or use a firearm; other states may have stricter laws that require a more scrutinized screening process. To be more specific, most states vary in elements, such as the exceptions to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, the waiting period on purchasing firearms; if someone needs a license to own or purchase a gun; if registration is required; and if a record of the firearm sales is sent to the local police. Other factors that will differ from state to state would include, if some firearms are permitted or not allowed to be sold or owned by a state, the concealed carry laws, hunter protection laws; range protection laws, and finally, not all states have firearm injury lawsuit preemption.

This essay will discuss the role of the magistrate and jury in the English and Welsh legal decision-making process. It will assess both the advantages and disadvantages of both mechanisms and give an opinion on the contribution they make in the process.

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.

Looking into criminal justice procedure, many administrations are at work. Starting with the police, to the courts and concluding in corrections. Though all these sectors have different tasks, their combined focus is processing the law. Regardless what the process is called criminal justice will continue to serve with discretion, conviction, and correction. When first presented with the question whether criminal justice is a system, non-system, and network I leaned toward a network. Throughout our discussions, lectures, and readings I felt the process presented itself as a network. Intertwined divisions working for a common goal. Further into my research and help from Webster, I decided that the criminal justice

Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. said it the best in his speech to the Text & Teaching Symposium, "We current Justices read the Constitution in the only way that we can: as Twentieth Century Americans." Justice Brennan also called the Constitution a fundamentally public text and called for its use to resolve public issues. If that is true, then the document must be interpreted from today's perspective - Judicial Activism. However, using only that approach would be saying that the work of the original framers was mute. This document is over two hundred years old and still very relevant to today's society. In my opinion, the court needs to find a fine line between activism and restraint or intentionalism

The Supreme Court has had many different places where it was located over the years. There has been a struggle to find a permanent home for the most powerful court of law. At first, the meetings were in the Merchant Exchange Building in New York City. The court then followed the nation's capitol to Philadelphia in 1790. In 1800 the court again relocated to Washington DC. At first they spent their time meeting in various places. The place to find the Supreme Court now is in Washington DC, on First Street located in Northeast.