Call this post a full-court press on Supreme Court news and views (article on Stevens "The Dissenter" and the "Incredible Shirking Court" need to be read by Friday with summaries of the two articles blog posted here. Also, post answers to the three bold-faced questions posed in the post by Friday).
But first, breaking news from the Supremes after the annoucement last week that the High Scourt has granted Cert and will take up same-sex marriage, hearing both a case stemming from California's Proposition 8 voter-approved ban on gay marriage and a case from new York challenging the constitutionality of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.
How big of a role will public opinion play in the Supreme Court's decision?
2) From the 2005 Senate comfirmation hearings of Samuel Alito, political cartoonist Mike Lane illustrated the constitutional conundrum facing the newest justice and the term stare decisis -- lettting the precedent stand unless there are compelling reasons not to -- and a woman's right to choose an abortion.
Alito's mother said, "Of course he's against abortion,'' in a classic sound-byte before during the confirmation hearings. The question is not really what the Alito believes personally, but as NPR reported in 2005 if that Roe v. Wade was settled law.
Under what amendment and protection did the Supremes rule a woman had "the right to choose" in 1973. What precedent setting case did the Court follow to make its decision?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5012335 ___________________
3) U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made news last week by speaking is mind, something he's not prone to do while on the job.
As the above data shows,
Thomas' silence during Supreme Court oral arguments is legendary. While his
colleagues pepper lawyers with questions, Thomas listens. While the other 8
justices force legal teams to perform verbal and logical gymnastics 30 minutes
at a time, Thomas often leans back in his large chair and stares at the
ceiling.
"Justice Stevens, the oldest and arguably most liberal
justice, now finds himself
"Stevens, however, is an improbable liberal icon. “I don’t
think of myself as a liberal at all,” he told me during a recent interview in
his chambers, laughing and shaking his head. “I think as part of my general
politics, I’m pretty darn conservative.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/magazine/23stevens-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
This is one of the two linked articles you need to read by Friday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/magazine/23stevens-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
This is one of the two linked articles you need to read by Friday.
Justice Stevens, from Chicago, retired from the High Court in 2010, at age 90.
________________________
5) The second article you need
to have read by Monday is Time's cover story on the Roberts Court from October, 2007, before judicially reviewing Citizens United, The Affordable Health Care Act and this sessions Affirmative Action and Same Sex Marriage cases:
The Incredible Shrinking Court
The Incredible Shrinking Court
"The irony is that the Court's ideology is playing a
dwindling role in the lives of Americans. The familiar hot-button
controversies--abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty, police powers
and so on--have been around so long, sifted and resifted so many times, that
they now arrive at the court in highly specific cases affecting few, if any,
real people. And it's not clear that Roberts wants to alter that trend. His
speeches on the judicial role suggest a man more interested in the steady
retreat of the court from public policy than in a right-wing revolution. Unless
the Roberts court umpires another disputed presidential election (à la Bush v.
Gore in 2000--a long shot, to say the least), the left-right division will
matter mainly in the realm of theories and rhetoric, dear to the hearts of law
professors and political activists but remote from day-to-day existence. What
once was salient is now mostly symbolic."
______________
SCOTUS Blog is another great resource. Here is a link they put together yesterday on year end statistics, graphs, etc. (including how often each judge voted w. each other, the number of 9-0 decisions (more on this than any other) and much more.
//www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/10/us/politics/20100505-kagan-opinions.html?ref=politics
____________________
The world saw former Vice-President being called a “rock star” and getting an Oscar from movie stars for his documentary on the “climate crisis,” and later a Nobel Peace Prize. But with far less glitz and fanfare, the legal definition of whether global warming is damaging US and the world was being argued in the U.S. Supreme Court a few months ago.
The new “swing vote” on the high Court is Justice Anthony
Kennedy and his questions during the oral arguments in Massachusetts, et al. v.
EPA (05-1120) seemed to indicate that justices may be ready to decide more than
the case at bar.
At issue is the states’ (MA. and 12 others, including Illinois)
lawsuit challenging the federal bureaucracy’s (EPA) lack of enforcement of an
act of Congress (1990 Clean Air Act). The questions the Court is considering
are:1) May the EPA decline to issue emission standards for motor vehicles based
on policy considerations not enumerated in the Clean Air Act?2) Does the Clean
Air Act give the EPA authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases?Breaking down the oral argument, Justice Kennedy seemed to be saying the
Court has a bigger, global, question to answer. But not all on the bench seemed
to think it was in the Court’s jurisdiction.
From the transcript of the oral argument, Justice Kennedy is
questioning counsel for the petitioners, the Massachusetts states attorney:
JUSTICE KENNEDY: At the outset, you made this, some of this perhaps reassuring statement that we need not decide about global warming in this case. But don't we have to do that in order to decide the standing argument, because there's no injury if there's not global warming? Or, can you show standing simply because there is a likelihood that the perceived would show that there's an injury?
MR. MILKEY: Your Honor, especially in this case where none of our affidavits were challenged, I don't think the Court needs to go there ultimately on the merits because we showed through our uncontested affidavits that these harms will occur. There was no evidence put in to the contrary, and I would add that the reports on which EPA itself relies conclude that climate change is occurring.
JUSTICE KENNEDY (later): What is the
scientific answer to if global warming exists? I think this Court might have to
press for an answer to this question.
(Justice Antonin Scalia’s prides himself as a strict
constructionalist, and a Constitutional scholar. He never claimed to have aced
Mr. Rosiano’s “Cosmic Journey” class, he chimes in):
JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Milkey, I always thought an air pollutant was something different from a stratospheric pollutant, and your claim here is not that the pollution of what we normally call "air" is endangering health. That isn't, that isn't -- your assertion is that after the pollutant leaves the air and goes up into the stratosphere it is contributing to global warming.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Milkey, I always thought an air pollutant was something different from a stratospheric pollutant, and your claim here is not that the pollution of what we normally call "air" is endangering health. That isn't, that isn't -- your assertion is that after the pollutant leaves the air and goes up into the stratosphere it is contributing to global warming.
MR. MILKEY: Respectfully, Your Honor, it is not the stratosphere.
It's the troposphere.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Troposphere, whatever. I
told you before I'm not a scientist. (Laughter.)
JUSTICE SCALIA: That's why I don't want
to have to deal with global warming, to tell you the truth.The decision in
Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA (05-1120), given last June ruled in favor of
Massachusetts.
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency - Opinion Announcement
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency - Opinion Announcement
30 comments:
1) To say public opinion will play no role in the upcoming decisions is impossible. The debate on same sex marriage has been perculating for decades now, and with a nation now in favor of the change, millions of voices are going to be heard. Ultimately, the justices need to uphold constitutional law; but how easy is that with all of America bearing down on your doorstep?
2)The 1973 case claimed that under the 14th amendment a woman was guaranteed the privacy to make her own decisions in regards to her life and the life of the child so long as the child was not viable. The case Griswold V. Connecticut was the precedent setting case.
3)The oral arguements are undoubtedly important, but they are not the judges' time. It is the time for the lawyers to present the arguement and the information to the judges. Thomas does not speak because he doesn't believe it is his place to do so. By the time a case has gotten to the SCOTUS, all the questions have been answered, so the justices have no need to talk.
My summaries of the articles will come tomorrow
1) I don't think that public opinion will be a huge factor in the upcoming decision. Because of the nature of the Supreme Court and their role in interpreting the law, as opposed to appealing to public opinion (as opposed to legislators or executive officials, who worry about reelection) I think their decision will have a little less to do with public approval and more to do with reserved powers to federal and state governments.
2) Roe v Wade (1973) was decided upon based on the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment, and the precedent-setting case was Griswold v Connecticut (1965).
3) I don't necessarily think that it is advisable nor appropriate for the Supreme Court justices to talk and engage in oral arguments to the extent that they seem to have, and I think Thomas has a valid point in that the laws haven't changed, and so there shouldn't be so many questions. His analogy to the absence of a "debate seminar" style operating room made a valid point--their job is not to talk through exactly what they're doing or debate the best way to do it. You go to them because everybody else has tried, and has not been able to solve the problem like they could.
Like Jordan, give me another day on the articles.
1) I believe that the supreme court and particularyly Justice Scalia will rule to turn same sex marriage decisions over to the legislature. There are extremely significant public opinions on both sides of the same sex marriage debate, and it would therefore be extremely difficult to find substantial enough constituional support for such a substantial ruling. Obviously public opinion is going to play a role, because the court needs to remain a source of fairness among the other political branches. Therefore, I think that the public opinion about the courts will be more impactful than what the public thinks about the decision at hand.
2. In Roe V Wade in 1973 used the due process clause of the 14th ammendment that has now turned into a sort of "privacy clause". This case was also based on the precedent set in place by Griswold v. Connecticut.
3. I think that the focus on Thomas's lack of oral argument shows the value the public places on being involved. However, he supreme court is not supposed to focus on their image of making a flashy argument for the public, and they are simply there to decide what is in the constitution and what isnt. They are not lawyers, and that is why they do not hear witnesses or look at evidence. The arguments and discussions would add an entirely new level of red tape that is not necessary in the already slow process of the Judicial system.
4. The fact that the Judicial System is becoming more conservative becomes clear when you look at Justice Stevens- who could be described as one of the most liberal justices yet will not call himself such. Maybe due to the fact that his father was unjustly accused of embezelment when Stevens was a child, he seems to rule against the government and for the people more than most of his colleagues. He is also a firm believer that Justices can not be persuaded after they have made up their mind. He is known for many things, approaching the longest term on the supreme court, being known as a maverick and spending the most time away from Washington during his term. Man critics say that Stevens is more led by his personal opinions and experiences than legal documents.
5. Justice Roberts is 52, and 35 years younger than Stevens. He is also contrasted strongly by Stevens because Roberts is a strict conservative. He does specifically emphasise that while divisions among the court are inevitable, it should be a goal of theirs to reach concesus on the big issues at hand. However, it is also clear that Roberts would rather stay out of the public eye than deal with the pushing issues that have infiltrated the court. These issues such as abortiona an gay marriage are going to contrast sharply with his first term which many refer to as his "honeymoon period".
1) I think in a perfect world, public opinion would play no role in the upcoming decisions. That being said, I think that in the back of their minds, the justices will know what they believe and what the public wants. They will have to try to put all of that aside in making the decisions and remember what their true job is; however, it is impossible to completely disregard public opinion on these subjects.
2) Roe v. WAde was decided using the Due Process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. The precedent setting case was Griswold v. Connecticut.
3) The oral argument is key in deciding a case. I think that Justice Thomas doesn't speak because he personally believes that it is the lawyer's time to speak and explain their side and why the judge should rule in their favor. That being said, I thinkthat it is completely appropriate for justices to "pepper" the lawyers with questions because questions are raised in the written argument that need to be confirmed and answered in the oral argument. The oral argument carries different levels of importance to certain justices, as can be noted in how much they questions the lawyers.
Article summaries will happen tomorrow.
1) I think that public opinion already has had an enormous impact considering that the Supreme Court has finally decided to hear same sex marriage cases. I think culturally we are shifting to a more tolerant, but also diverse society, as seen in the last election. This means that even if the justices say they wont allow media outlets, or the President himself to affect their decisions, I think our culture shift is unavoidable. You also have to consider the enormous momentum same sex supporters have. All I have been hearing about is why they should allow it and why its wrong to deny a person to love who they want. Little do I hear of the oppositions. If public opinion does play a role in their decisions, pro same sex marriage will be the ones to be heard.
2)The 7-2 decision in Roe v. Wade, challenged a Texas anti-abortion law and overturned the prohibition of abortion in 46 states. The decision was based on the right to privacy, which was interpreted from language in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendmentt. The privacy precedent was set earlier in Griswold v. Connecticut, which decided no laws could be made restricting married couples' right to use contraceptives.
3) I think its great that we have the system of oral arguments because if I were a lawyer, or in any situation for that matter, I would always want to have a shot at proving why I am right and why I should win. I think its a great way for the judges to maybe learn new information or allow for the Lawyer to use his skills to try to win the case. But I also think that Thomas is very smart and kinda like the old experienced man who lets all the "kids" do the talking while he sits back and listens. I think he kinda created a role and example for many justices to come.
Articles will come tomorrow as well.
Taylor's Article Summaries :)
4) The Stevens article was an interesting commentary on the rightward shift of the Court, as even the most liberal judge considers himself conservative in terms of interpreting the Constitution. Also, the personal connection behind his motivation to join the Supreme Court, and particularly his interest in protecting the individual from the government's flaws (i.e. his father's corruption trial) was interesting. Additionally, the article comments on the age of Justice Stevens (87) and raises the point on whether or not judges should have life tenure. Finally, the fact that Stevens writes a large number of dissenting opinions is unique to his character, and also unique is his belief that sometimes the dissents and concurring opinions can be more impactful than the majority opinion itself.
5) This article, primarily about the Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts, not only clarifies the role of the justices in deciding on some of the nation's most pressing issues, but elucidates the right shift and, correspondingly, the smaller role of the Court. They have been accepting fewer cases on the docket, and have been increasing in the number of split courts, having many more 5-4 decisions than 9-0 ones. This could attest to the justices' desire to have the legislation have more control over the course of the nation, because they can more appropriately include public opinion in their decisions.
Article Summaries:
4) After reading this article I realized that Stevens was a extremely fair judge and compared to other judges I feel like he made his decisions based on what he interpreted the Constitution as and on his own experience, which honestly I think is the best way. As we are seeing the Supreme Court is slowly shifting to the right and I feel as if a lot of the judges come in with the mindset that they are either "Conservative" of "Liberal". This article shows that there really shouldn't be titles in the Supreme Court, as justice Stevens has shown. Through his experiences as a child, fighting in the war, or witnessing the flaws of the Supreme court, Stevens has the most equal and level minded approach. Its also great to see how the diversity of the Supreme Court also makes it a very fair place for cases to be decided. You have extremely experienced judges like Stevens, then you have the newly appointed judges like Alito. Going off what Sydney said, a lot of people think Stevens bases his decision too much on personal opinions rather than legal documents, but I think thats the whole purpose of the Supreme Court; where you can have judges like Stevens bring the knowledgeable experience to the table, but also have judges like Alito and Scalia counter that with legal debates.
5) This article focuses a lot on Justice Roberts. The general idea I got from it was that Justice Roberts first term was his way of just kinda decreasing the involvement of the Supreme Court because he doesn't want the Supreme Court to become to involved with cases, especially when a lot of the recent ones have affected a extremely small number of people. But as we know, they will soon be taking on controversial issues such as gay rights. Roberts want legislation to decide this because I think that 9 individuals shouldnt be able to affect the lives of millions, rather the elected officials, who represent those millions, should pass laws in their interest, in other words, public opinion should decide the outcome. I think this is what makes the Constitution so powerful though; because many always argue that the Constitution is outdated and that the Supreme Court can't always accurately interpret it because of it vagueness. But as Roberts shows, the purpose of the bicameral Congress is so that as public opinions, culture and society continue to change, the people who we elect to represent us will always be able to represent the changing opinions.
Jordan's Article Summaries
4) The Steven's article I found to be very interesting. As a strong minded liberal, I found it curious and perhaps a bit frustrating that one of the most historically liberal judges is in fact a strong conservative. This speaks towards the massive rightward shift of the court, where even on their most liberal day they still remain just to the right of center. However it was heartening to see that the dissenting opinion can actually carry so much weight in the court. With the liberal side of the court growing smaller and smaller, we need all the firepower we can get.
5) I think this article was an effective insight into the position of Chief Justice Roberts and his associates and the shift his court has experienced. Though he strongly desired more 9-0 decisions, it seems that he has really only caused further division in the court through his choosing of much more controversial and rare cases. This lack of cases also points towards the point Justice Scalia made in the videos we watched, that is the legislators' job to pass legislation to change the country, not the court's.
1) I believe that public opinion is a factor in the Supreme Court considering that as society changes, the cases that the court hears change as well. Idealistically, Public Opinion should have no influence in the Supreme Court but there is always an opinion or idea that can sway a justice's mind, no matter how much they try to avoid the influence.
2) In 1973 Roe V. Wade was decided using the due process clause from the 14th amendment and the precedent setting case was Grisowld vs. Connecticut
3) Oral arguments are opportunities for lawyers to speak on behalf of their cases and prove why they should be the winning side. It's not an opportunity for the justices to showcase how much they know and their ability to question the living daylights out of people. Thomas is correct in letting the lawyers give their oral arguments without interruption and listen rather than speak. That way the lawyers are given a chance to thoroughly offer intelligence about the case they are making.
Article Summaries
4) I actually really enjoyed the article about Justice Stevens. I found it very interesting as to how he decided to go into law and to become a justice for the supreme court because it wasn't his original intention and yet he ended up becoming one of the most liberal justices ever, which brings me to my next point. Justice Stevens is almost the epitome of not putting labels on people because even though he is like the most liberal justice ever, he's in fact a conservative at heart. I think the fact that Stevens is so old but still is capable of doing his job and that he still likes it kind of supports that justices should have life tenure unless they retire because if you like what you do and can still do it then you shouldn't be forced out of it because you're a little older than the other justices. Also, I love how Justice Stevens was never really afraid to give his opinion, whether it be a majority or minority, a dissenting or concurring opinion because he still made an impact as a justice with his opinions, proving how important they can be.
5) Chief Justice Roberts, it seems, has really only just divided the court even more. Even though he wants more unanimous decisions by the court, the fact that he is picking fewer cases and much more controversial cases is making it difficult for him to achieve that 9-0 victory. I think that in some ways, it is good that we have scholars like the justices making decisions for the nation but in other ways, we shouldn't let nine people decide how we can or can't live our lives. In this way, perhaps the justices shouldn't be dealing with issues that are more legislative issues rather than court issues. However, I think that in the end, Chief Justice Roberts has the right mindset but may be going about implementing his mindset in the wrong way.
4) This article provides a lot of insight into Justice Stevens. I find it interesting that he is called the most liberal justice on the court but according to him, he's actually very conservative. He only appears liberal because his colleagues in the Supreme Court are more conservative than he is. Also, his process of lobbying other justices and persuasion of justice kennedy is admirable. He makes sure to retain the votes that he receives and by sometimes assigning the opinion to Justice Kennedy when he is on the fence is a good tactic for persuasion.
5) What's really interesting to me is that a lot of the cases that the Roberts court hears are very specific towards only a handful of people. 50 years ago cases such as Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v Wade changed the lives of millions of people and now since the court is shrinking, a lot of major ideas have not reached the Supreme Court until now with cases like same sex marriage.
1) Public opinion would probably have to play a role in the upcoming decision. Same sex marriage is too huge of a topic for public opinion NOT to have some sort of role. As Jordan said, with all the weight of millions of people supporting the change on the shoulders of the Supreme Court, it's only human that they will involve some of the public opinion.
2) Roe v Wade was decided upon based on the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment, and the Griswold v Connecticut case set the precendent
3) He makes the oral arguments seem like a complete joke, especially when saying "My colleagues need to shut up!". In which point, he is somewhat correct. The orgal arguments are made for the lawyers, not for the justices to ramble on. It is not Thomas's place to speak, which he believes in strongly. The oral arguments do not belong to the justices.
4) The Stevens article was a really interesting read. I really liked reading about people viewing him as a liberal was completely wrong in his eyes, as he calls himself pretty darn conservative. The number of 5-4 decisions made in the Supreme Court was also a surprising read, as I wasn't aware of how many larger cases were such a close call. The dissenting of several opinions actually gave him the name "The Dissenter", which I found pretty funny.
5) The way I see it, justice Roberts doesn't take his job too seriously. He expected everything to be smooth sailing, but got bombarded by popular issues like gay marriage, death penalty, etc. It really is surprising how it mentions that the Supreme Court is losing it's power over time. To me, it makes it seem like the other branches are taking advantage of that to increase their own power, but maybe that's just me.. Even so, the court has dealt with the same issues countless times and the justices, as well as the people, seem to be getting quite bored of it.
1. The debate of whether or not public opinion will have an effect on Supreme court decisions is a never-ending one. The proceedings of the court are private to the public eye, but it is still a political body. We always wonder what effect a lack or lessening of elections would have on other representatives. In the case of the Supreme Court, the presidential appointment and life long terms definitely help to keep the opinion of the public out of decisions, however with such a large amount of pressure as is provided on some of these decisions, it must have some effect on at least a few of the justices.
2. The decision was set in Roe v Wade based on a citizen's right to privacy and by the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment. This right was also set in precedent by Griswold v Connecticut.
3. Oral arguments are a very important part of the judicial process. No matter how much practice justices have in gaining perspective from past court proceedings, the power provided by the emotion and dedication of a victim or plaintiff in a case provides an aspect that cannot be gained from any amount of text and helps the court make a decision based on their interpretation of the truth.
4. The Stevens article was interesting because it provided a previously unknown perspective on the Supreme Court justices. Not only did justice Stevens provide insight on how the justices were real people and not the dark figures we think of in grade school, but he brought light to real questions about the lifelong tenure and motivation to become a judges. Stevens talked about false charges posed against his father when he was younger that sparked his judicial career. It made me wonder if he held any bias in deciding on cases that reminded him of this past. He also brought light to the increasingly conservative nature of the Supreme Court. All of his considerations further my doubt of the supposed closed-off nature of the highest court.
5. The Roberts article provided insight about the roles justices have in making decisions. With more and more 5 to 4 decisions instead of unanimous decisions there is very often a swing vote that decides a major precedent for the nation. The Supreme Court is also accepting fewer and fewer cases which shows an increased amount of discernment that most likely leads to increased importance of each case. It also made me wonder about the implications the separation of powers held in the Supreme Court. Although the President appoints the justices, are they subjected to any outside influence after in place?
1) In my opinion public opinion will play little to no influence in the upcoming decision. Although I think the Supreme Court will need to upkeep constitutional law and keep the reserved powers of the state and federal governments. Ultimately the justices need to keep the honor of their position and uphold the constitutional law.
2) The Roe vs Wade 1973 case was based on the 14th amendment because of the due process clause. The case that set the precedent was the case Griswold V. Connecticut.
3)The oral arguments definitely are the base of the case, although I don't think it is really meant for the judges to speaking all that much. Thomas doesn't need to speak that moment because most of the questions have been answered at the time of SCOTUS.
I am going to be copying and pasting my summaries tomorrow after school
1) I think public opinion will definitely play a roll in the decision (as it always does), however I think that public opinion on gay marriage is so divided that it will end up not having a huge roll in the final decision. Especially since the Supreme Court is not held to public opinion like elected officials will, I think public opinion in the end will have a far lesser role than we would initially expect.
2) The Due Process Clause under the 14th Amendment protecting the right of privacy gave women the “right to choose.” The case Griswold v. Connecticut set the precedent.
3) I think that Thomas’s silence shows that once a case gets to the Supreme Court the facts of the case are already well laid out and that there doesn’t really need to be more arguments made or questions asked to make a decision if your knowledge of the Constitution is that of the Supreme Court Justices. The cases facts are what they are and the Constitution is what it is. Nothing about the oral argument will change it at that point.
4) This article focuses on Justice Stevens’ political opinions and how he formed them over his lifetime. I especially enjoyed reading this article because it helped explain how personal views and ideologies filter in to Supreme Court decision while at the same time showing how sometimes justices set aside those views because of their interpretation of the Constitution. Stevens’ experiences growing up shaped his political ideology; however, his views have still changed while he was in the court. It was also interesting to see how Stevens courts the vote of Kennedy by either giving him the opinion to write or writing an opinion that persuades him to vote.
5) When Chief Justice Roberts came to the Supreme Court, he vowed to have a more cooperative and bipartisan court. However, the Court’s opinion may be less important nowadays than it was in the past. Since most major issues have been decided upon, a lot of the cases that the Supreme Court tackles are lesser issues only affecting a few people. The Court too is taking less and less cases. The justices’ backgrounds are far less diverse: they all come from the federal court of appeals. They don’t have the diverse backgrounds that justices once had (governor, president, state judges, presidential advisors, etc.) On the other hand, they are one of the most divided courts ideologically as they have again and again had many 5-4 decisions. The question that lies ahead is will the Court be able to put their ideological differences away to make worthwhile decisions in the coming years.
I. Especially with this case, public opinion may play a key role because the issue of same-sex marriage has been on debate for a long time and it is almost at its peak. Years ago, public opinion alone would have been so negative toward the idea that the issue would never expand. Public opinion has shifted toward one more tolerant of same-sex couples and this will factor into the decision because if this case had been taken before public opinion was as divided as it was then there would have been not as much of a necessity. The current shift and divide adds more weight to this case that is too heavy to ignore.
II. The supreme court’s ruling was based off of the 14th amendment, which contains the due process clause which “prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property” This gives a woman the freedom to do what she wants to with her body. The precedent for this case was laid out by the 1965 decision from Griswold V Connecticut.
III. I agree with Justice Thomas and I think the oral arguments have become an almost wasted resource now because, as he points out, they get very hefty briefs on each case and the laws of the past already exist. There does not seem to be a strong necessity to go into lengthy in depth oral arguments unless there is a need for clarity on a point. As justices it is their job to make DECISIONS. If they wanted to be the one asking the questions they should have stayed as lawyers. Listening to the lawyers make their final case is really all that needs to be heard for a decision to be made.
Article summaries will follow...
1. Public opinion will have a role in the Supreme Court’s upcoming decisions. While the Supreme Court is supposed to base its decisions purely on the Constitution and legal precedents, a case involving same-sex marriage has a wide range of impact, affecting a major percentage of the population of the United States. As the Supreme Court is primarily concerned with the United States as a nation, it will most likely allow public opinion to impact the personal opinions of the members of the court, which will in turn impact the Supreme Court’s decision.
2. In 1965, the Supreme Court reached a decision on the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, in which Connecticut’s state law stated that birth contraceptives were illegal. The Supreme Court responded that Americans were entitled to a “right to privacy”. This case acted as the precedent setting case the Court followed to make its decision in 1973 for the case of Roe v. Wade. In Roe v. Wade, the Court once again stated that women were entitled to a “right to privacy”, extracted from the Due Process Clause within the 14th Amendment.
3. Justice Thomas’s silence during oral arguments illustrates his opinion that oral arguments are for each side to argue their opinions in regards to a case. The Justices will sort out their own opinions during the judicial conference following the oral arguments. I personally agree with Justice Thomas as, oral arguments are a time to see how each side does defend their argument and decision, and to compare both sides. Not a time for Justices to show off their own knowledge and make unwanted interjections during an oral argument.
4. This article focuses on Justice Stevens, who is an extremely unique Justice. I found it quite interesting that he connects the scandal of 1969, during which a dissenter did not publish his paper, in order to “maintain collegiality”, to his own penchant for dissenting. He is strongly against the suppression of individual opinions, and wants the public to know all opinions and sides to cases made by the Supreme Court. In other words, he wishes to be honest with the public. Justice Stevens is also used to represent judicial liberalism. He wishes to cease contortion of precedent setting cases and follow a new “legal liberalism”. As he continues his interview, he discusses his desire of judicial oversight to the executive branch, and for government to become neutral. Furthermore, although the Supreme Court relies on the Constitution and precedent setting cases to support their decisions, Justice Stevens refuses to rely solely on the Constitution, as times are changing, and wishes to cease relying on contorting precedent setting cases to fit every case. It’ll be interesting to see where the Senior Associate Justice takes the High Court!
5. This article focused on Justice Roberts and how he remains too fixed on gaining a unanimous vote (9-0) on cases, and how the Supreme Court is now involved in an extremely small amount of cases that, while controversial, affect very few men and women. However, Justice Roberts’s “honeymoon period” is over, and the court is firmly divided, consistently voting 5-4 on multiple cases. It’s the fact that the Supreme Court now represent a small amount of cases which affect very few people and differ on their final decision on these cases by as few as one vote that leads me to believe that its decision really should not carry for the whole country (being that the margin of difference is that of one person and that 9 men and women should never be given the right to decide upon cases that once had the ability to affect an entire nation). Finally, if the Supreme Court has such a miniscule range of influence, given the lack of cases it represents and the people these cases affects, it’s quite clear that it is on its way to becoming obsolete.
1) Of course a decision can never be 100% devoid of influence from public opinion, but I do not think that it will play a huge role in the decision. Although opinion is certainly split down party lines and justices might be influenced to vote with their party ,I think overall they don't have much reason to vote according to outside public influence. They hold their term indefinitely regardless, and public opinion is split about 50/50 on the issue, so it's not like compliance will be an issue no matter which way they decide to vote.
2)Roe v. Wade (1973) was based on the right to privacy from the Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment. Precedent was set earlier in Griswold v. Connecticut(1965), cancelled restrictions to married couple's rights to learn about contraception.
3)Justice Thomas's silence basically says that the oral arguments are a time for the justices not to fight their own opinions, but to hear all sides of argument, and to decide based off of that information what they believe is constitutional. Coming from somebody who doesn't speak up in class an awful lot, I totally understand how not trying to speak (aka enforce) a particular though makes your opinions more objective and focused (for Thomas that might be not whether its right or wrong, but if its constitutional or not).
4) The Supreme Court term (ending in 2007) was more conservative than in past years-- with decisions split along party lines and the conservatives winning out repeatedly. The conservative wing is currently dominated by a younger generation seeking to uproot precedents that they have misjudged.This is reflected by the fact that Justice John Paul Stevens (senior associate justice), self-proclaimed conservative, is now "responsible" for forming the liberals' jurisprudence. Stevens often employs a variety of tactics (writing the opinion himself, assigning it to others, etc) in an effort to bring more votes to his side-- particularly that of Kennedy.
Although Stevens had a particularly happy child hood, the wrongful conviction of his dad after the Great Depression made him disillusioned about the criminal justice system-- he realized it isn't perfect and it causes him now to vote more in favor of individual rights that most justices on the current courts, as well as vote more against the infliction of the death penalty (an opinion stemming from his experience at war). He was influenced heavily by previous Justince Rutledge (who he worked under, and taught him the importance of judicial review). His belief that all dissents should be heard stems from his experience examining the Illinois Supreme Court in 1969. He was appointed by President Ford based off a merit appointment.
Stevens has acquired a reputation over the years for being a bit of a “loner” who focuses on the fringes of issues, is more interested in explaining than arguing his case, and is often known to not follow Supreme Court custom for ways he sees more proper or efficient. His decisions always fall in line with some common themes, however: 1) government should remain neutral (seen in his opinions held on matters such as abortion or affirmative action), 2) the need for judicial oversight on broad claims of executive power, 3) an obligation to protect liberty and equality with a broader view of the nation’s history as a whole (judicial activism?).
In the future, democrats are looking for a progressive judge like Stevens to fill his spot.
5) John Roberts, the 17th Chief Justice and dashing, charismatic self-proclaimed deep conservative leads the “conservative side” of a split Judiciary. He once advocated for unanimous opinions within the court, but the temporary success of that was only a brief result of his honeymoon period. The idea of the article is that Roberts is leading us into a “shrinking court” where the Supremes play a little part in public policy these days or in American lives in general because the court cases they accept are so narrow in scope. Less cases are also being accepted. The article criticizes the justices for getting little done (in terms of the number of people affected and the amount of statues etc better defined) with much rhetoric.
Despite the fact that Roberts encourages people not to focus too much on just one term of the senate, the coming terms’ issues are controversial and full with justices that seek a “hot” spotlight. Instead of unanimous decisions (like Roberts wants to see), there will be many dissenting opinions. It’s the difference between an ideologically divided court and one that should be working together.
1.)The Supreme Court has ruled marriage to be a fundamental right that should not be denied. In fourteen Supreme Court cases the Supreme Court has stated that it is a right of all individuals. Looking at the public opinion’s population, the younger population plays a major factor in shifting the in the cause of the transition from the anti-marriage opinion that the older population has held. It is logical to say that the public opinion will continue to assimilate into a consensus for pro-marriage, simply because of the fact that the older population will eventually die.
As to the matter of the Supreme Court ruling, I feel that the decision that is decided will be affected by the fact that the country’s majority agrees on the side of same-sex marriage. Should the Supreme Court come down to side with equal rights, it would allow the divisions between this social issue to heal more quickly. Having said that, public opinion will be playing a role in the Court’s upcoming decisions.
2.)Roe v. Wade (1973) was decided under a 7-2 decision that under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, a woman has the right to her privacy in her decision of having an abortion. The precedent-setting case was Griswold v. Connecticut (1965).
3.)I think that Justice Thomas’s decision to remain silent is just a different way of saying, “This is just one way to act as a Supreme Court Judge.” Referring to the graph showing Scalia as one of the more comical Justices, it stands to represent that public displays of wit and inquiry aren’t priorities for some judges.
I sympathize with Thomas’s decision to remain silent, because of the fact that as a judge you’re pretty familiar with the law already. By asking questions and stating opinions, you begin to form or take in bias about the cases themselves, ultimately leading to Supreme Court arguments that struggle in coming to a consensus. Oral argument is a tool for persuading or accepting others’ persuasions, but in the case of Justice Thomas, it is a tool better left at home.
4.) Reading the interview of retired Justice Stevens, I cannot help but wonder how he would rule in the two upcoming cases regarding same-sex marriage. I admire the fact that when asked about the controversial topic of abortion, he states that those rights are better decided by the women that are in these situations. The reading gave insight on a man I had simply considered a retired justice. But having finished the article I’ve come to realize that he was a man that believed in expressing his opinion regardless of its popularity, as a favor for the People.
Last article summary was deleted, will be up by end of the day.
Yea! With Latimer's posting, that puts one post for every student in class (average)....but ah, Scrooge, some -- Jordan, Rohan, Taylor and Kirin all posted twice -- meaning that some have still not posted in on this 15 point assignment (5 for each summary, and 5 for the questions).
Maybe too much information, but for Roe v. Wade the lower court's decision was that the Ninth Amendment, in stating that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," protected a person's right to privacy. This was the basis of Griswold v. Conn. (1965).
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_griswold.html
The Supreme Court chose to base its decision like you all said on on the Fourteenth Amendment. Roe v. Wade was decided primarily on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. A criminal statute that did not take into account the stage of pregnancy or other interests than the life of the mother was deemed a violation of Due Process.
In both of these cases, SCOTUS used what have been analyzed as judical activist decisions. (Privacy is never enumerated in the Constitution). Today, "Pro-Life activists have sponsored bills in states "personhood amendments" that would give the unborn (fetus or child, the power of words depending on your side) 14th amendment Due Process protections.
1) There is no doubt in my mind that public opinion played a monumental role in the decision on women's rights to abortion. This is mostly due to the fact that there is nothing specially in the constitution that says this is illegal. In 20 years I really doubt that same sex marriage is even going to be an issue. Its just the progression of time that will put this civil liberty in the hands of the people.
2) Roe v. Wade was decided using the due process clause. Also, they used the 14th amendment and that set precedent to Griswald v. Connecticut.
3) The importance of the oral argument of the justices isn't all that important as some justices have made it seem. Thomas has made it completely clear that he doesn't need to show off and assert himself, he can leave that up to the lawyers of the case. The lawyers should certainly have the luxury of being able to speak without interruption from the judiciaries.
4) The Stevens article was very intriguing to me. It was somewhat inspirational to hear the story of justice Stevens. The man is one of the most liberal members on the court but he considers himself to interpret the constitution very conservatively. He was a sort of hero for the citizen because he had most sided with the individual over the government in the cases he heard. I think it's great that Stevens wrote so many dissenting opinions because it really shows that he thought long and hard about his decisions, and would come to a conclusion on both sides of the political spectrum in his head. Another amazement was that he did it for so long (32 years). He was truly a maverick of the United States Supreme Court.
5) The article on Chief Justice Roberts describes the apparent right political shift of the Supreme Court. But it also talks about the lesser role of the court in all cases. Instead they have chosen to rule on more pressing issues which is the reason for the trend of more 5-4 decisions on cases. Personally, I think it's the right decision to make. It gives the court more legal weight compared to the legislative and executive branch.
1) Public opinion is so important in recent days because the issue of same sex marriage can affect millions of Americans and not just a small amount. Although the justices need to follow the law, they should also consider changing with the times.
2) Roe V Wade was decided by the due process law under the 14th amendment. and the precedent setting case was Griswold V Connecticut.
3) I think the judges are wasting time by arguing so much. They should realize that although the laws aren't changing, times are.
4) I actually really like Stevens as a judge. He’s fair and makes morally right decisions. Even though he turned out to be conservative, his decisions were largely liberal. This shows that most judges should not be remembered as liberal or conservative, but by the decisions they made. His childhood experience, war, and experience in the supreme court, I believe that Stevens has the most equal and just decisions. Even though the public believes that Stevens makes his decisions based on personal opinions, but I’d have to disagree and say that it’s decisions like Stevens’ that are good for the majority.
5) This next article focuses on Chief Justice Roberts. Roberts (like taylor said) clarifies the role of the different justices by deciding on major issues. Although, the Court has been making decisions on fewer cases, the decisions have been closer together.
5.) The Robert article gives us a brief synopsis of the type of man the Supreme Court justice is. With his inauguration into the Court came a honey-moon period that allowed him to advocate his philosophy of unanimous decisions. But with time the effect has worn down, and in its place a divided court has risen again.
Under Robert’s supervision a phenomenon has occurred causing the court to get smaller; there are less cases being given granted certiorari. Having said that it seems that Justice Robert is a factor that is limiting the judiciary process.
4) The idea that Justice Stevens is the most liberal of the judges comments that courts have become more conservative yet he cannot call himself a liberal shows that the courts have definitely turned to the conservative side. In a way its a good thing because there should be strict interpretation of the constitution. Although since Justice Stevens does have many dissenting opinions it kinda shows that he can bring his own experience into supreme court decisions in addition to interpreting the constitution.
5) Justice Roberts is definitely the polar opposite of Justice Stevens in age and ideologies. While there is a huge age gap and experience gap between the two justices it seems that there is a huge ideology gap as well. Justice Roberts is considerably much more conservative than Justice Stevens and would prefer more stricter interpretation of the constitution. Perhaps its good to have conflicting opinions in the Supreme court because then there will be more discussion before coming to the right decision.
1. I think public opinion will be somewhat of a factor in the court ruling, just because it's such an important part of our political system to begin with. However, at the same time, I don't think it really should play a large factor in the ruling at all. The judges are there not as the voice of the people (so to speak); their job is to clarify and solidify the legality and constitutionality of a certain action/situation that's in question. It should be independent of the public thinks - ideally, the judges will rely only on their own legal/constitutional knowledge to make a decision. So, public opinion hopefully won't play a big role.
2. It was under the protection of the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment that Roe v. Wade was ruled under in 1973. Griswold v. Connecticut was the case which set the precedent that Roe v. Wade later followed.
3. I think the oral argument is definitely an important part of the judicial process, but it's also true that as Thomas stated, there's really nothing else that hasn't already been covered in previous trials that can suddenly be brought forth to SCOTUS. There's already a ton of records for the same case if it's made its way all the way up to SCOTUS, so extensive debate and questioning isn't as necessary, because almost everything is already there in the records.
4. This article focuses specifically on Justice Stevens. It's actually very interesting, particularly the part where he mentions that, even though he is considered the most liberal justice, he considers himself conservative and was actually a moderate Republican when appointed. It's kind of fascinating how he says that it's not that he's gotten more liberal, it's just that the new justices have gotten progressively more conservative. The article also discusses how both Stevens and Roberts try to persuade Kennedy to one side or the other. Overall, very interesting and insightful, with an intimate look into the professional/political relationships within SCOTUS and how those are reflected in various cases.
5. This article discusses Justice Roberts and his professed goal to unify the courts (and how that seems to not be working), as well as the "Incredibly Shrinking Court". There is mention of how the justices seem unwilling to compromise, the cases being taken are highly specific and don't realistically affect hardly any people at all, and how the justices are more interested in billowing, arguably unnecessary rhetoric rather than substantive questioning now. It's actually very interesting and a little disheartening at the same time - it seems like SCOTUS is becoming less and less efficient, with fewer cases, less influential cases, and MORE rhetoric. However, it does bring up the good question of whether SCOTUS is actually needed anymore, in favor of letting the government produce legislation accordingly.
On another note, it's kind of interesting how it seems like every aspect of American politics is becoming more and more polarized. Not sure that that's a good thing.
Parker N.
1) I think that a public opinion pole will play a significant role in upcoming decisions especially the more "activist" judges. As activist judges choose to see a "living" constitution, a poll that displayed the "living opinion' of the american people would give them valuable insight.
2) The decision made in Roe v Wade was the product of the Griswold v Connecticut case and from the due process clause in the 14th amendment.
3) The ability to verbally present your case is a valuable skill for lawyers to have, but I think the most valuable points are made from the written points from the justices as they are generally more thought out and thorough. I think that justice Thomas's silence allows him to make an wise decision by watching and gathering rather than attacking and nit picking, he leaves that to the other justices.
4) This article primarily focuses on justice stevens and how the court has become progressively more conservative as time has gone on. I think this ideological creeping to the right reflects the gradual shift of the entire conservative party. I found it especially interesting that justice stevens was considered a moderate republican when he was appointed.
5)This article also hints at the gradual conservative shift further right that this country has experienced in the past years. Other than that, it primarily focused on Justice Roberts and his decision to take on less cases that affect more people. Roberts wants the legislation to be the deciding factor on most issues, and that the supreme court has no place dictating the lives of millions of people. But with congress at practically a complete stand still it seems to me as if this decision is just closing off another branch of government as a viable option to get things done.
Torrey Smith Women's Jersey
Share with your bird, heck, eat off the same plate Share this information with anyone you know who may be shopping for a jerseys Common wisdom flows off the tongue like water over the falls but doesn't always require that the brain be fully engaged Any kind of bicyclist can definitely truly profit from acquiring the most ideal apparel, which means that any person wanting a good cycling experience will have to know how to pick them
Frank Gore Jersey
And the field is too crowded!What? You didnt know I was running One way links will help you gain better rankings in the major search enginesYou may not always agree with what he has to say It is hard to imagine he did not know the work done at the Franchithi Caves that shows HYBRID grains before the Fertile Crescent ordinary grain harvests
Falcons Tony Gonzalez Jersey
Post a Comment