The structural layout and functions of the Supreme Court are some of the most unique aspects to any court system. Of these, the tenure of a Supreme justice in the court is perhaps the most distinctive. Supreme justices once appointed, serve a tenure term for life or until retirement that would make any professional envious. This privilege serves many purposes, both bad and good that are essential to a justice’s ability to interpret the law of the constitution without conviction. Much has been debated on the need for Supreme Court justice’s tenure to be limited. Opponents raise viable objections towards the status quo, stating that letting a justice serve for seventy plus years can cloud the judgement of a justice’s opinion to the evolving social Often in many lower courts, the power of politics exceeds too many areas of the justice system. Judges who are politically supported and appointed by such influences may be removed or not reelected due to court decisions they make. So in turn the appointment of life in the Supreme Court ceases any political or outside repercussion of a decision’s to cease. Thus the judge is now only bound to the law and the constitution, hence judicial independence. Other aspects to appointment such as salary are also notable points on if influence is affected. However with salary for life, at roughly $240k for associate justice and $250k for Chief Justice, even with a reduction or increase of salary, influence would be null. Even so Article III also states a clause that a federal judge’s salary may not be subjected to a reduction, for the sole purpose of influences not enticing or threating their lively hood (United In fact, the Supreme Court system is considered a de facto lawmaker. The legal foundation that has enabled the Court to decide what legislation is constitutional or not is what makes it a de facto (Harr, J. S., Hess, K. M., Orthmann, C. M. H., & Kingsbury, J. 2015). The precedent case that address this function was Marbury v. Madison (1803), in which gave the court the power void and nullify any legislation congress passes that violates the constitution, also later including the states in Martin vs Hunter’s Lesse (1816) (Harr, J. S., Hess, K. M., Orthmann, C. M. H., & Kingsbury, J .2015).This has been seen in many instances where congress and states have passed legislation that impedes constitutional rights. Cases such as Roe v Wade (1973), in which denial of abortion under state law violates a constitutional right of free choice, or United States v. Windsor(2013) in which the congressional federal act of 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that allows refusal to marriages of same sex marriage, was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court are such examples. ( Harr, J. S., Hess, K. M., Orthmann, C. M. H., & Kingsbury, J .2015). These cases illustrates the method of de facto lawmaking in which the Supreme Court looks at the components of law to deem where they violate the constitution or
The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.
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 intuitive ability to maintain a balance of power, suppress rising sectionalism, and unite the states under the Federal Government.
Henson, J. (Interviewer) & Elkins, Z. (Interviewee). (2008). The Bases of Longevity in the U.S. Constitution [Interview video file].
By taking the oath required, “Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God” (U.S. Code), the federal court judges are then protected by the other branches in the system. The other branches are not to have an influence in the judge’s decision. With the federal court judges being as protected as they are it means that they are free to make any decision they feel is right under the law without worrying about consequences. Which I personally think is fair because the federal court judges have to make decisions that society may not agree with, but it is what is best. Protection allows the judges to have free range of their decisions because it is going to better the society. The federal court judges have nothing to fear, they are safe in their decisions which I
Supreme Court and Court of Appeals judges are elected in nonpartisan statewide elections. Mid-term vacancices are filled by appointment. State law requires that nominees are state residents and have practiced law for a minimum of seven years.
Jost, Kenneth. "The Federal Judiciary." CQ Researcher 8.10 (1998). CQ Researcher. SAGE Publications. Web. 01 Mar. 2011. .
In Robert Lowry Clinton’s book Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review, the author describes the controversial ideal of judicial review, which became a major power delegated to the Supreme Court following the case Marbury v. Madison. Clinton does this by tracing the origins of judicial review that preceded the court case, as well as describing the institution through the court case itself and its future in the American justice system. Despite the court’s now famous history, Clinton claims in his book an agreed upon notion of judicial review of constitutional matters has existed before, during and after the Marbury decision.
Many judges, whether appointed or elected, tend to serve for life. Often times, once they are in place, then it is very difficult to remove them. The advantage of having judges that are older is for their experience and wisdom. These judges are typically able to make sound judgments. They have obtained a degree of respect from their community and judicial colleagues. If a judge is able to maintain a sound mind and is physically fit to stay on the bench, then there should not be a cause of concern. However, with the aging process, the human body begins to decline. Unfortunately, sound judgment and memory begins to diminish. The body begins to weaken and it becomes increasingly difficult for a judge to keep up with the demand for the job. Often time than not, the judge is the one who decides when he should step down. If he a defiant person, then that decision will be a difficult one for him to make even though his stepping down would be for the betterment of all people. Most judges are able to continue serving even into advanced ages. As long as they are capable, then they should continue to do
... their rulings. They do not make the laws; that is the job of Congress. Their primary goal is to interpret and decide the constitutionality of federal law. As stated previously from Section 1 of Article 3 of the Constitution about the establishment of the Supreme Court and creation of the lower federal courts, the combination of these court systems represents the original Framer’s compromise to establish a national court and allow state courts to exercise jurisdiction in disputes falling under federal law.
Throughout the years there has been limitless legal cases presented to the court systems. All cases are not the same. Some cases vary from decisions that are made by a single judge, while other cases decisions are made by a jury. As cases are presented they typically start off as disputes, misunderstandings, or failure to comply among other things. It is possible to settle some cases outside of the courts, but that does require understanding and cooperation by all parties involved. However, for those that are not so willing to settle out of court, they eventually visit the court system. The court system is not in existence to cause humiliation for anyone, but more so to offer a helping hand from a legal prospective. At the same time, the legal system is not to be abuse. or misused either.
The court determines whether on not an action is constitutional or not through the process of judicial review. Not only do they keep the Legislative and Executive branch in line, they keep other courts in line. Many and very few cases require the Supreme Court to review and overturn decision. Example are the Miranda v. Arizona cases where the police was in the wrong by violating Miranda’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment therefore ruling in Miranda’s favor. Also the Weeks v. United States case was an example of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment being violated was again ruling in the defendent’s favour. Finally, the Plessey v. Furguson case was a little different really displaying the courts power to interpret laws and ruling in the prosecuter’s favour. The Judicial Branch is certainly not the weakest branch and has a more important role than many people
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
These early Supreme Court decisions have made a lasting impression on the United States. Marbury v. Madison established the concept of judicial review that strengthened the ability of the judcicary to act as a check against the legislative and executive branches by providing for the review of Congressional acts by the judiciary to determine the constitutionality of such acts. McCulloch v. Maryland allowed for the expansion of Congress’ implied powers needed to execute its delegated powers as well as defined the supremacy of constitutionally enacted federal entities over state statutes.
Columbia Law Review, 104, 1-20. doi:10.2307/4099343. Reynolds, S. (2009). The 'Standard'. An interview with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The grounds of judicial review help judges uphold constitutional principles by, ensuring discretionary power of public bodies correspond with inter alia the rule of law. I will discuss the grounds of illegality, irrationality and proportionality in relation to examining what case law reveals about the purpose and effect these grounds.