William Brenn Dawn Of Modern Justice

Throughout America’s history, we have believed that humans have individual rights that should be protected and supported by the rulers of our country. The Constitution’s Bill of Rights was created to protect these rights, and the Declaration of Independence even proclaims that “all men are created equal”. However, there were hundreds of people scattered throughout the colonies, and then states, in America who did not have these same rights and were not always seen as human, such as African Americans, women, and Native Americans.

To examine the history of a case that continues to affect students today, it is important to look at how the discrepancy began starting with Mary Beth, John, and Christopher. The tumultuous 60s can be described by Kelly Shackelford, a constitutional attorney,

Harlan thus courageously argues that the “separate but equal” doctrine not only violates the fundamental principles of democracy, namely equality and freedom, but also contravenes the U.S.

For centuries, the success of a democratic society has been measured by its commitment to equality, a resounding principle central to our nation’s founding. The Enlightenment-inspired language of the Declaration of Independence, namely the age-old axiom that “all men are created equal,” pervades our perception of the American creed. However, nearly a century passed before the Lockean principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence began to bear the force of law. Entitling American citizens to due process and equal protection of the law, the Fourteenth Amendment, perhaps the most transformative Amendment of all, has inspired the steady progression of American society. Nonetheless, while the Amendment serves as the chief legal force behind the democratic goal of equality, questions regarding its achievement of that goal

From the years of 1953 to 1969 the Supreme Court was historically known as the Warren Court. The Warren Court is named after the Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren who is famously known for cases such as Brown v. Board of Education, Fay v. Noia, Mapp v. Ohio, Sherbert v. Verner, and New York Times v. Sullivan. “Earl Warren 's name has become the shorthand for a jurisprudential shift from state toward federal authority; the Warren Court offered an expansive understanding of the role federal courts could play in enabling access for a host of new claimants seeking an array of rights” (Resnik 2012). Earl Warren’s court and jurisprudence is best known for cases on expansion of federal habeas corpus, expansion on the law of criminal procedure, expansion on free expression and exercise of religion, and desegregation public schools. All three played a pivotal role in the Supreme Court and the judicial system.

“The due process revolution forged during the Warren Court years during the 1960’s by extending the major guarantees of the Bill of Rights to the states took on a life of its own”(407, O’Brien). This meant that the Warren Court did nothing but reaffirm the

Distinctive within American history, the duration in which Earl Warren served as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court (1953 to 1969) witnessed a vigorous court fearless to challenge controversial issues. Changing the way Americans today perceive their relationship with their government, an activist court did much to expand the rights of the individual and the power of the federal government to enforce civil rights legislation. Not since then has the Supreme Court generated so much power in shaping American culture. And because of all what Earl Warren has done he is remembered as one of the most influential Supreme Court Justices in American history. Through all the cases during Earl Warren’s tenure I strongly believe that

In America we are constantly reminded of the idea of freedom and equality for every individual. It is not commonly acceptable to base a person’s stature in the community from their race, class, religion, or sexuality. The most powerful act that brought forth new standards of civil rights and equality privileges was the fourteenth amendment. One of the most highlighted aspects mentioned within the document is that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny any person… the equal protection of the laws.” This simple statement has made an impact in today’s society. The equal protection of the law primarily draws from and requires equal treatment for all citizens in the United States, but

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 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

Over a century after the emancipation of millions of slaves, and twenty-five years following the declaration that “separate is not equal,” the case Regents of University of California v. Bakke ruled in favor of affirmative action. Justice Harry Blackmun affirmed in this decision that “[i]n order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way.” As one of the most liberal judges on the court at the time, Blackmun tended to rule favorably in regards to expanding the rights of women and minorities. In presenting this opinion, he explains that issues of race must be addressed and considered in order to fix racism, prejudice, and systemic oppression. In regards to affirmative action (among other positive

Three court cases that played a huge role in the relationship between citizenship, rights to suffrage and representation of the American democracy are The People of the State of California v. George W. Hall, Dred Scott v. Sandford and Guinn v. United States, where each case left a lasting change in the minority group’s flight for equality. In the case of The People of the State of California v. George W. Hall, the Supreme Court ruled that a White defendant was falsely convicted of murdering a Chinese person on the basis of the testimony from a Chinese witness. On appeal, the defendant’s lawyer argued that a non-white witness could not testify against a white person (Shaw et al., 2015, p. 141), where in the state of California, blacks, mulattos, and Indians could not testify in any case against a white person because they were not reliable in court because they were, “no recognize the Chinese and other Asians as a full person whose testimony were admissible in court,” (Shaw et al., 2015, p. 142). The court decision emulated the prejudice that was heavily present in the United States, especially Anti-Asian Movement, because they were seen as, “inferior, who were incapable of progress or intellectual development beyond a certain point,” or “claim any citizenship rights” (Shaw et al., 2015, p. 142) and were left unable to protect themselves or their rights because the ruling ultimately dehumanized them into being seen as mediocre asinine individuals. In the case Dred Scott v.

Vera Blum continued to bring cases to court and in 2013 Blum brought the case Shelby County V. Holder. This case was centered around The Voting Rights Act of 1965 and officially questioned if “the renewal of Section 5 of The Voting Rights Act under the constraints of 4(b) exceed Congress’ authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and therefore Tenth Amendment and Article Four of the Constitution” (“Shelby County V. Holder”). While this is quite likely easily understood by one who is familiar with the law, the vast majority are not so intimately acquainted with the Constitution. Therefore, to grasp the very essence of this case requires a great deal of unpacking. Upon unpacking the question it becomes easy to divide the question into two distinct parts; what Blum’s team is seeking to abolish and his explanation as to why. The purpose of this paper simply requires an understanding of the former and allows us to focus on the important and manageable two, as opposed to the overwhelming six. The question brought by Shelby County starts with “Does the renewal of Section 5 of The Voting Rights Act under the constraints of 4(b) exceed Congress’ authority” this reveals the intent to either combat the renewal of Section 5 or to remove “the constraints” put in place by Section 4(b) (“Shelby County V. Holder”). To challenge Section 5 is to challenge the section of The Voting Rights Act that prohibits a very specific list of areas from changing their voting

The judicial branch, in its conception as outlined in Article III of the constitution was designated the “power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases (The White House)”. However, since the ratification of the constitution, much like the other two branches of government, the judicial branch has also experienced an expanded delegation of authority and power. This notion is evidenced in the 1803 decision on the case of Marbury v. Madison where the Supreme Court asserted its power of judicial review by ”blocking last-minute appointments by outgoing President John Adams (Chegg)” by declaring that these actions should not be permitted because the supreme court, under chief justice john Marshall declared them unconstitutional(Cornell). This set forth a very powerful precedent for judicial review, one that continues to play a critical role in political discourse today. Although the evolution of the judiciary commenced following the fallout of the 1803 decision, the courts have delegated to themselves a controversial role as policy-makers in response to societal demands and stresses placed upon the political system specifically during and after the civil rights movement that occurred in the United States during the 20th century. This expanded role into the realm of actual policy making is derived from the belief that the constitution is indeed a living and flexible document that must retain the capability for change. As the

In this paper, I will discuss a number of topics regarding woman and the Supreme Court from historical precedents to objective research to the importance of female judges and Justices and finally to the possibilities of the future. Each of these steps is vital to fully understanding how we got to our country’s current place in female jurisprudence and creating future opportunities for women both on the Supreme Court and in all other levels of the judicial system across the United States.