Article III of the Constitution of the United States vests judicial power in “one supreme Court”. With incredible adaptability, the Constitution has stood the test of time. Largely due to the limited specificity as to the application of its words, the Constitution has allowed the character of the Court to be historically defined by the individuals who have held the position of “Chief Justice of the United States”. The ideology and individual Constitutional interpretation of each Chief Justice has changed both the influential power and message of the Court. Earl Warren, Warren Burger, and John G. Roberts, Jr. have all successfully been appointed to the Court as Chief Justices. And although the Constitutionally proscribed process of …show more content…
It had been a long time since Warren had practiced law and he had only practiced for a short amount of time after law school (Newton 42). During a private meeting at the McClellan Air Force Base in California, Eisenhower’s Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr. told Governor Warren that President Eisenhower was going to appoint him as Solicitor General until a spot on the Supreme Court became vacant. “The President believed that service as Solicitor General would be valuable prior to membership” on the Court (Schwartz 2). Typical of standard informal appointing procedure, Attorney General Brownell, Jr. played a large role in Warren’s transition from Governor to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. According to David O’Brien in Storm Center, “Most presidents delegate responsibility to their attorneys general and close White House adverse for selecting candidates and getting them throughout the Senate (O’Brien 40). Only a few days after the meeting with Attorney General Brownell, Jr., Earl Warren’s future changed when Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson died unexpectedly of a heart attack (Schwartz 3). President Eisenhower had promised Warren the first vacant seat without expecting Chief Justice Vinson’s seat to become vacant; Eisenhower had an Associate Justice’s seat in mind for Earl Warren (Schwartz 3). While talking with President Eisenhower at a White House breakfast, Representative Willam S. Mailliard, who had been Earl
The late 1700s and early 1800s was a critical time period in American history in which our newly independent nation was beginning to lay down the groundwork for how the country would run. During this time, America was in its infancy and its crucial first steps would dictate how the nation would either walk, run, or retreat. John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the Unites States, was a highly important and influential political figure whose decisions forever molded the future of the American judicial system. Like many other great political figures, much of John Marshall’s influence can be attributed to timing; he emerged just as the United States Constitution came into existence.
In America’s time there have been many great men who have spent their lives creating this great country. Men such as George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson fit these roles. They are deemed America’s “founding fathers” and laid the support for the most powerful country in history. However, one more man deserves his name to be etched into this list. His name was John Marshall, who decided case after case during his role as Chief Justice that has left an everlasting mark on today’s judiciary, and even society itself. Through Cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) he established the Judicial Branch as an independent power. One case in particular, named Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), displayed his
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,
Samuel Alito was born on April 1, 1950 in Trenton, New Jersey, to Rose Fradusco and Samuel A. Alito Sr. His mother was a schoolteacher and father was a an Office Director of Legislative Services. He was raised in an upper-middle class catholic Italian-American family. He attended Steiner High School graduating at the top of his class. After high school he entered Princeton University as an undergrad. While attending Princeton University he joined challenging activity such as ROTC. After graduating from Princeton University in 1972 he continued his education at Yale Law School and graduated in 1975. During his time at Yale, he was the school’s law journal editor and also served on active duty until 1975. He was discharged from active duty in 1980.
The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican
The current Supreme Court membership is comprised of nine Supreme Court Justices. One of which is the Chief Justice and the other eight are the Associate Justices. The Justices are Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., and Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr.
Also commonly referred to as The Steel Seizure Case, it was a United States Supreme Court decision that limited the power of the President of the United States to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the US Constitution or statutory authority conferred on him by Congress. The Majority decision was that the President had no power to act except in those cases expressly or implicitly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.
The first part of this essay will provide a brief insight into the history of the Supreme Court, the original intentions of the founding fathers and a discussion on how they idealized the relationship between politics and the law. The second section will explore how the contemporary process to which judges are appointed has become significantly influenced by politics. The third section will discuss how the Supreme Court overstepped its boundaries on constitutional interpretation in the Roe v. Wade case. The final section will unpack the importance of partisanship and ideological politics and discuss how it impacts the function of the Justices in their
For example, in the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought to expand the court and create a majority of Democrats, who, if appointed, would fervently support his New Deal program. Professor Gregory G. Caldeira (Ph.D.), in the Department of Political Science at The Ohio State University, argues in his article, Public Opinion and The U.S. Supreme Court: FDR’s Court-Packing Plan, that in this incident, there was indeed an “intimate connection between the actions of the justices and support for the Supreme Court…during which Franklin D. Roosevelt sought legislation to permit him to pack the high bench with friendly personnel” (Caldeira, 1987, p. 1139). Referring to the Gallup Polls of 1937, which showed that public support for the court substantially decreased in four months, he believes that justices tend to build up their relationship with parties in brief periods before appointment. He sardonically states that this phenomenon has become a “series of well-timed decisions” (Caldeira, 1987, p. 1141). Even though Congress eventually rejected Roosevelt’s “Court Packing” plan, Caldeira’s view demonstrates the drastic influence of the executive branch, and more broadly, party politics, on the high court. This particular case portrays that party politics are continuing to undermine the Constitution
Judicial Activism- When judges deny legislators or the executive the power to do something unconstitutional.
The US Supreme Court has a number of powers. These include the power to declare acts of Congress, the executive or state legislatures unconstitutional through the power of judicial review. The supreme court justices are also given the power to interpret the constitution when making decisions, again, through their power of judicial review. It is arguable that it is essential for the supreme court to have such powers in order to allow the American democracy to flourish. However, there is much evidence to suggest that the supreme court holds too much power for an unelected body, thus hindering democracy.
This paper is going to describe the road from arrest to Supreme Court, and the two ways a
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Fourth Amendment). The text of the Fourth Amendment does not define exactly what “unreasonable search” is. The framers of the constitution left the words “unreasonable search” open in order for the Supreme Court to interpret. Hence, by looking at
“...a Supreme court justice must interpret the laws without fear or favor.”(Amy Klobuchar). Supreme court nominees have been appointed by the president of the United States since Washington’s presidency. These all have been successful nominations but there has been some decisions about having the people to nominate the court justices this time. The president should still be the one to nominate Supreme Court Justices because the Constitution directly states the amendment, common people do not know what to look for in a Supreme Court Justice, and to prevent the abuse of power between the branches of government.
The composition of the United States government holds many expressed, implied, and reserved powers that radiates vast roles and complexities throughout. However, through a system that checks and balances, power and roles within the U.S. government has been primarily placed within three (3) branches: The Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, and Judicial Branch. In order to offer a separation of power, each branch is responsible for their roles within the government. Aside from specific responsibilities, each branch is responsible for enforcing a system of checks and balances, so that, one specific branch does not obtain too much power. Although structurally influenced by the United States Congress, the judicial branch, specifically the Supreme Court, is the supreme law of the land and argues the constitutionality of issues and laws. The “final say” of constitutional issues, and the role the Supreme Court plays in the “final say” has largely contributed to the debate regarding the power, if any, the judicial branch has of these constitutional issues. However, through a brief analysis of power and authority the Supreme Court has on constitutional issues, it is evident that the judicial branch does not have the “final say” of constitutional issues. Rather, the judicial branch plays are large part in setting up the framework towards finality.