The Supreme Court Of The United States

In this article, political implications are given emphasis. To begin with, the same-sex marriages lead to a democratic disrespect. Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized the point as he opposed the idea in the Supreme Court (Powell, 2015). Concerning the precedent round of litigation Hawaii, Rosenberg and Klarman’s source emphasis has been a significant negative legislative response in Congress and state capitols (Powell, 2015). Despite that, there were other bright electoral consequences as well. These electoral consequences were very but not entirely

The Supreme Court’s decision finalized the questions of whether states have the right to pass laws treating marriages differently based upon sex, and if states have to acknowledge the marriage of same-sex couples who were married in another state. On a 5-4 decision, the Court determined that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because they cannot be treated differently than opposite sex couples. The court also determined that states have to recognize same-sex marriages the same way they do with opposite-sex. However, the Supreme Court did not create a law about same sex marriage, it just stated that

On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry. Many conservative groups do NOT agree with this decision. The gay marriage debate has been simmering for as long as I can remember. The four articles I have selected give information from four different perspectives including that of liberals, conservatives, homosexuals, and orthodox Jews. With so many differing opinions, one can understand why it's been so hard for the nation to come to agree on this issue.

The purpose of the Supreme Court is to review or address cases that involve issues on a federal level or of constitutional law, just as appellate courts hear cases on a state level. Their responsibilities include deciding how to apply the principles of constitutional law to new matters and issues that arise in today’s day to day legal process; they also play the role of the “parent” to lower federal appellate courts when their decisions on legal issues are contradicting to one another, overlap, goes against constitutional rights, or allows room for confusion as to whose decision takes precedent. Bottom line the purpose of the Supreme Court is to provide the rules and statues for state level courts to abide by when they

Repeatedly throughout history, the United State’s Supreme Court has changed their standing on labor laws, from supporting the right’s of employees to supporting the right’s of employers. In 1903, the Supreme Court concluded through Lochner v. New York that the government did not have the right to oversee businesses, but in 1908 the Supreme Court passed an unprecedented decision regarding labor laws. In Muller v. Oregon, the Supreme Court alternatively sided with the workers and upheld restriction on working hours in a gendered argument based on the fact that the workers were women. On the surface, the decision was just, as it protected workers’ right, but in the long run the outcome was unjust; suggesting through gender formation, intersectionality, and structural sexism that superficially the decision was a progressive legislation but it masked misogynist values, preserved heteronormative ideals and perpetuated gender inequality.

Because the Constitution is a living and mutable document, it reflects the structure and values of the current government and guarantees personal liberties in the present. Thus, Justice Kennedy was able to use the Constitution in a fluid way to interpret DOMA: “While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law [DOMA] does, the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved” (Kennedy’s June 26, 2013 Supreme Court decision). By striking down DOMA’s third Section, Kennedy removed an unjust limitation put forth by Congress and the President, and simultaneously, protected personal liberties. By interpreting the constitution in this manner, Kennedy preserves the union by preventing violence and protest that might otherwise occur if DOMA had been upheld. This smart political move, though it may have offended some deep-seated conservatives, pleased the 57 percent of Americans who support homosexual unions (Pew Research Center 2015 poll) and did not impose upon the right of heterosexuals to get married and enjoy the benefits of legal unions; au contraire, it expanded the number of people who were allowed access to marriage benefits. The government became

Rehnquist also dissented in Roe v. Wade (1973), in which the majority based a woman's right to an abortion on a constitutional right of privacy that arose not from the terms but from the "penumbras" of the Bill of Rights. He wrote, "To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment."

The Supreme Court of the United States did not apply sound reasoning in formulating their final opinion in Reed v. Reed. Even though, the Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous in ruling the Idaho statute unconstitutional because of violation to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The reason why I believe that they did not apply sound reasoning in Reed v. Reed is because the level of scrutiny applied. The Supreme Court applied the rational basis test instead of strict scrutiny. Commonly, when the Supreme Court applies the rational basis test to a law, the law passes because it can be proven that it is “rationally related to a legitimate government interest” . There was no precedent for this case because it was the first time that the Supreme Court heard a case on discrimination against women in violation of the Equal Protection Clause( 404 U.S. 71, 72 ).”

The Supreme Court has presided over cases that have changed the history of the United States? The Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, and it permits Congress to decide how to organize it. The generalizations I would make about the backgrounds of the Justices, letting the American people decide this question is the reasonable approach that how long they could sit in office, and how they get appointed into office. We the people should be able to vote who hold the seats in the Supreme Courts and how long, just like we vote for the president on United States and any electoral office. They shouldn’t be allowed to serve as long as they like. We all know that once they are appointed, the Constitution states that the United States Senate

Issue: Does the Supreme Court of the United States have the constitutional power to void any acts made by Congress? Does section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 give the Supreme Court the right to issue a writ of mandamus without violating the Constitution?

This particular case was another impact our Chief Justice has had on our Country. Though, Roberts did not win this case in the end but had strong opinions towards the issue. Today, same sex marriage is legal in all fifty States. According to Roberts, he believed if same sex was acceptable then why not agree on polygamy (Macedo, Stephen). This particular marriage is having multiple wives or husbands at the same time. Roberts was very strong with his argument and stated polygamy would be less of a stretch than same sex marriage, declaring, “From the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world (Macedo). If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one” (Macedo). After the passing of the same sex marriage law, Roberts brought up the Constitution and wanted all to stop thinking it was the reason for the decision because it had nothing to do with it. Roberts believed the Constitution knows nothing about fairness. Same sex marriage was made legal in the United States on June 26, 2015 (Macedo). The United States Supreme Court ruled this law in Obergefell v. Hodges

The United States Federal Courts of today, are vastly different from what they were when our country was first beginning. The courts of the federal system today, are designed in a hierarchical manner, with the United States Supreme Court sitting as the highest court in the land, and as the court of last appeal (Neubauer & Fradella, 2008). While there are several different courts, which make up the federal system, there are laid out in a way that allows for an avenue of appeals for a courts decisions. These appeals go up, from the lower courts, to the higher courts, and this allows for the review of cases, to ensure that the person bringing the appeal has not been denied due process of law.

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

The Supreme Court is responsible for making some of the most important cases that set the tone for society, as it continually ensures that the Constitution remains the law of the land. Many landmark decisions have been made by the court that have impacted society in some of the most significant ways; some of these cases include Marbury v. Madison (1803), Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Miranda v. Arizona (1966), and Roe v. Wade (1973). Key decisions that are being made don’t simply impact the plaintiffs and defendants; rather they continually impact the public and the present and future of these issues that have been decided, setting the tone for the rest of us. These important decisions that have and are being made continue to cause much controversy as not all will be agreed on by the public or even other political figures/branches for that matter. And with the way that the court is organized, specifically with lifetime tenure, it can easily make the decisions look to be immune from public opinion. Yet, at this same time, the court must look at how society operates as well as its norms and values, which are impacted by these decisions. And from that aspect, it doesn’t seem that public preference is completely thrown out the window; it takes the ability of the public to identify these concerns/issues that need to be addressed, as is the case when it comes to public-policy making.

The Supreme Court is the only court explicitly established by the U.S. Constitution and it is the uppermost federal court of United States. The Supreme Court stands as a guardian of constitutional liberties and the final and concluding arbiter of the law. The Supreme Court is also the final interpreter of federal Constitutional Law. The Supreme Court is the last and final authority in deciding all cases and appeals which involve laws made by Congress under Constitution. The Supreme Court can only adjudicate a bill or an act. It cannot initiate it. The Supreme Court has deciding power whether an act passed by Congress is Constitutional or unconstitutional. Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court and places it at the head of federal judicial system in U.S., it permits Congress to decide how to organize it.