The Supreme Court As A Multi Layered Methodology Process

The position of the Supreme Court in American society is quite simple: to interpret the Constitution and settle case disputes with the limitations that are binded by our law. While one perspective of the debate states that the court is unbending in their ability to make policy, while the other claims that the court breaks free from these limitations that are binded by our law and are politically dynamic in nature.These are known as The dynamic court and the constrained court are two alternative constructions of the role of U.S. courts in producing significant social reform (Rosenberg, 1991). The balance of these two views rely on the interaction between doctrinal,

According to Jost (2012), the nation has contradicting views on political issues which divide where we think the appropriate role of the government lies (p. 743). American politics is complex and reflects a partisan system, making it challenging for governmental officials to decide on whether or not to re-examine the constitution. Another crucial point when analyzing this issue, is a person’s positionality in the American society determines their view on the

In American politics, public opinion is mostly a latent force that typically has no important bearing on national decision making unless citizens become unusually attentive to politics. Many citizens are uninformed, which leads to inconsistent opinions. In Tides of Consent, there are many factors that shift public opinion. Some changes are fast and responsive, such as spikes in presidential approval, and some changes are slow, and occur in increments that may be overlooked. Public opinion in American politics is meaningless individually, but aggregately, public opinion is meaningful.

The Clarence Thomas proved to be a true political spectacle as eighty six percent of the American public admitted to having watched at least an hour of the Clarence Thomas hearings . The spectacle’s appeal to such a large number of Americans was an invitation for further intervention from the media. The opportunistic media capitalized on a situation where millions of viewers tuned in and used their coverage to influence the public. The media was able to manipulate the estimated 27 million viewers that watched the hearings .The media recognized that the personal drama of a public figure was a greater draw than political element of the hearings, and therefore highlighted the unsightly side of

The system of checks and balances represents the foundation for the American democracy as it ensures that no one branch of the American government can become too powerful. During the Jackson administration, an important ruling from the Supreme Court was released in the historic case of Worcester v. Georgia (1832). In this case, two missionaries were appealing their arrest for protesting the state of Georgia’s legal encroachment on Cherokee law and land (Tindall 344). Chief Justice John Marshall found that the Cherokee nation was “a distinct political community” (Marshall qtd. in Tindall 344) and therefore not subject to Georgia law. Marshall’s ordered that Worcester, one of the arrested missionaries, must be released from Georgia prison, however, Georgia refused to release him. President Jackson, who wanted to decrease the federal bureaucracy and emphasize state’s power, decided to not enforce the Supreme Court’s verdict by stating that “he had no authority to intervene in Georgia” (Tindall 345). This, of course, is untrue as the federal government represents the “supreme law of the land” as dictated by the US constitution (United States of America). Jackson, however, refuses to take this up this responsibility and neglects his constitutional rights and duties and

In order for the Supreme Court to be democratically legitimate should be both politically and socially representative. In a diverse country such as the USA it’s extremely difficult to be politically representative however the Court is even less socially representative. There is currently and has only ever been 1 member of the supreme court who is of Hispanic origin compared to the approximately 17% of the population.

In his book Courting Disaster: How the Supreme Court is Usurping the Power of Congress and the People, Pat Robertson discusses the conflict of the Supreme Court abusing their power. This includes conflicting notions with the Constitution. He discusses the original intention of the Supreme Court as well as what it is like today. Robertson’s writing is a very accurate depiction of the struggles that America faces in the power of the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has overstepped their boundaries when considering the will of the people.

Background: The issue of the Electoral College as the entity responsible for appointing the President of the United States of America has been among the most controversial aspects of the legal framework set forth by the American Founding Fathers. Throughout different times in history, modifications to it, have been proposed in the form of more than 700 Congressional Bills, some of which have even received the endorsement of incumbent Presidents or the approval of one of the legislative chambers. [1] This is the matter that has drawn the most proposals for Constitutional Amendments, displaying the discontent that certain sectors of the population have expressed about the status quo. [2]

#2) Describe the role the Supreme Court plays in the policymaking process. Compare and contrast Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint. Explain 5 Amendments in the Bill of Rights. How does a society balance possible contradictions and inconsistencies with respect to national security, and the rights of the individual? Discuss some of the conflicts, issues and problems that arose during the Civil Right 's movement in the 1950 's and 1960 's, as well as current Civil Rights issues.

If this course has taught us, it is the vital role and the genius of the creation of our judicial system. It has also showed us that was and is not perfect. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was good and effective legislation. Shelby County v. Holder (2013) legally justified according to the Supreme Court of the United States. But what can be frightening s the logic based on numbers. Chief Justice Roberts numerically logic defies realistic application too. Roberts writes in his opinion, “Nearly 50 years later, they are

The Supreme Court of the United States is perhaps the most eminent judicial branch in the world and has served for a model for justice and democracy. However the Court is not exempted from scrutiny, and critics question the increasing politicized nature of the Court, from the appointment process to the nature of their decisions in landmark cases like; Dred Scott v. Sandford, Roe v. Wade to Bush v. Gore. Based on empirical evidence, this essay argues that the United States Supreme Court today is severely influenced by politics and not as much by law- at least in practice. Indeed, robust partisanship of the political interests of the President and Congress imposes on the constitutional function of the Court.

Political scholar, William Hoffer, accurately describes the Supreme Court to have a strong influence in guiding the United States toward certain political paths. The decisions and rulings established by the Court cause a reaction affecting those within its jurisdiction. Working under the most powerful source of law, the Constitution, the Supreme Court has a heavy influence over the nation’s political fate, but all the power does not reside in their hands. While Hoffer’s opinion of the Court having a strong control over the nation’s political policies hold to be true, there is an established, complex system of checks and balances among the Court, the President, and Congress; so even though each branch holds a portion of power, their decisions may be denied or overruled by mutual agreement within the other branches. Nevertheless, every decision the Court makes has an impact on the nation, and there are several cases that built the foundation of American society and provided a strong foothold for future political establishments and positions that policymakers may base their decisions.

The Supreme court once handled a criminal trial? Today, the mere mention of lynching evokes negative reactions from people, but in the past not so much. If you were a person of color, you feared lynching because laws were either not enforced or did not exist to protect you from that disgusting method of death. I want to examine the history of the court case, United States v. Shipp (1906), to give one account of the American legal process eked a victory for African-Americans. The Supreme Court case is notable because the legal process brought few victories for Blacks in the late/early 20th century America. For example, the thought of a Black man causing harm to a white woman was fatally unforgivable and some were lynched by the public, regardless of their innocence. In the case of Ed Johnson of Tennessee, he met that same fate; his sixth amendment rights were violated in the process. He was a citizen of the United States, and guaranteed the same rights as anyone else living in the country.

The phrase, “We the people”, holds a lot of meaning to American citizens. As the first three words of the United States Constitution, it signifies a core value intended to act as a unifying factor in America’s democratic society: popular sovereignty. This is the idea of a majority rules, or to put more simply, the one with the most votes wins. The U.S. system of government relies upon the fact that the American people are capable of coming together to make informed decisions about matters that will ultimately better the lives of everyone. Despite this, however, there are certain instances in which a minority group will impose on or have more influence than the majority group. This phenomenon occurs all the time in politics, as politicians tend to regard the predilections of small groups of citizens as opposed to the general populace.

Presented by Professor Derigan Silver and Libby Pinkerton, A graduate student at the University of Denver, the Seminar on the Supreme Court focuses on the effect of media framing on the legitimacy and power of the court. Framing, defined as “…how something is presented to the audience (called “the frame”) influences the choices people make about how to process that information.”(XXX) is explained to be one of the main ways media alters the way the public perception of an issue or controversial court case. By selectively covering the issue or case being discussed, the media can purposely omit facts or views presented that greatly change the realty of the subject. The main issue with omitting a single or multiple views in favor of emphasizing