United States Supreme Court History

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,

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

In Supreme Conflict, Jan Crawford Greenburg provides insightful analysis and assessment of the politics surrounding the Supreme Court appointment process of Justices during the Rehnquist Court. Despite having seven conservative nominees the Rehnquist Court was deeply disappointing to those conservatives hoping to reverse decades of progressive rulings on key social issues. Throughout the book Greenburg describes both positive and negative appointments and nominations such as Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas, and David Souter. Greenburg also includes some background on the impact the Warren and Berger Courts had on the Rehnquist and later Roberts Courts.

The Third Article of the United States Constitution set up the Judicial Branch. Section One of the Article set up the Judicial Branch with “one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” It also stated that the judges in the Court can only hold office in good behavior with a compensation that is unchanging at anytime in the Court. During their time in office, that is. The Second Section of the Constitution brings to mention the fact that the power that the Judicial Branch has goes to anyone. All cases brought under the Constitution of the United States of America are seen in Court. It also talks about criminal cases having a trial by jury. This not including impeachment trials. The

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

Throughout the history of the United States, the decisions made by leaders of the past have become precedents for the rest of us throughout history and even now in the present. The United States in its most juvenile state was vulnerable to both the outside world and its own internal obstacles. The fourth Supreme Court Justice, John Marshall stood as a paradigm to the rest of the nation setting new precedents for the nation that would hold their power throughout history thus far. Chief Justice John Marshall existed as one of the most pivotal characters in history because his Supreme Court rulings developed new standards involving national supremacy over state’s rights, the roles of the Supreme Court and Congress, and the Constitutional roots

For more than decades the court has continued to be pivotal in some of the biggest decisions for the social identity of America. Specifically noting that for many years the majority of Americans supported things that shaped the identity of American history (i.e. Slavery, Gay marriage, Sodomy, etc.). Erwin Chemernisky continues to examine whether the courts roles in major social issues have failed the American people or not. Erwin continues to explain that the supreme courts failures culminated together, are not only a failure for race issues in America, but also a failure to interpret the constitution effectively (21). These broad generalizations of the court flourish throughout his book, however, it is final assessment of the court that leaves the most to be contended with. Specifically noting that overall the court has done way more harm than good with regards to addressing minority issues an in wake of the warren court has continued to make flawed decisions in favor of the majority (53). This rhetoric must be addressed and analyzed by first looking to professor Erwin’s view of the courts take on minority, secondly analyzing his take on the court before and after the warren era and lastly addressing his support and analysis of the purpose of judicial review. Through this analysis it will become evident that Erwin Chemernisky has misinterpreted the supreme courts position as a protector of minority rights instead of the upholder and interpreter of the constitution and law.

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.

NPR’s legal affairs correspondent, Nina Totenberg, described a “horrible political storm” brewing over the Supreme Court of the United States (“CNN,” 2016, p. 1). While reporting for CNN, Totenberg used these words to draw attention to the untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia in an era of modern politics in which the court has become more polarized than ever. The Supreme Court, the highest court of the land, is not only being severely impacted by partisan ties, but is now also deciding cases according to these biased beliefs. The Democratic and Republican parties, after corrupting and encroaching upon the federal judiciary, have made court nominations and rulings into a game of party politics, inevitably destroying the impartiality of the

The court case of Marbury vs Madison was a very interesting case. It brought attention to the powers of the Supreme Court, and its limitations. The case provided answers to multiple questions such as: Did Mr. Marbury had a right to the Commission? , Did the Law of the United States provided Marbury with an alternative solution to his problem? , Does the Judicial branch have the power to review and make changes to the actions of the Legislative branch? , and is it possible for the Legislative branch to expand the jurisdictions of the Supreme Court beyond the prescribed scope of power in Article three of the Constitution (Lawnix.com).

Acclaim for asserting the United States Supreme Court as a substantial participant in the American structure of government has been ascribed to the guidance of John Marshall as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835. By 1835, the Supreme Court had attained a level of equality with the prowess and prestige as that of Congress and the Executive that was not present before John Marshall was appointed to the position. Central to this development was the Court 's adoption of the Constitution as its distinct reserve. Chief Justice John Marshall utilized judicial review to eliminate the Supreme Court from the socio-political conflicts in government and to institute the rule of law based on the principles established in the Constitution of the Unites States. Marshall and his colleagues erected the Court 's recognized power by effectively affirming an assertion to explain the Constitution and subsequently supplant the Constitution as supreme law in the commonplace sequence of arbitration and by the end of his judgeship firmly supplanted the Supreme Court’s role in the U.S. system of government.

Cann explains that the judicial elections, which have become far more politicized and expensive over the years, continue to dismiss the impartiality and diminish the esteem of the judiciary in the United States(1)

This paper is going to describe the road from arrest to Supreme Court, and the two ways a

A less commom example but a more important example would be the case of Greece V.S Gallaway the united states supreme court ruled that during legislative seeions that town council