Inference and Interpretation: Supreme Court Vacancy
Introduction
For this week’s assignment, we have been asked to select and select and analyze an issue that is now in the national debate, such as health, education, climate change, role of the US foreign policy, United Nations, undocumented workers, or unions and the minimum wage. We will discuss how applying critical thinking impacts one’s meaning to events, social issues, or facts. As we explore the selected issue we will look at the critical thinking points of profundity clarity, logic, and finally looked at the Significance.
The Topic For this week’s assignment I have selected a topic that has recently been getting a lot of attention the media and that is of the sudden vacancy on the
…show more content…
I chose to cover this point of the process first so that I am capturing the most accurate picture of my knowledge on this subject before I have added to that knowledge while researching information for this paper. Here is what I know, the general information is that U.S. Supreme Court has nine judges that are called Justices that preside over the high court. To get there a person must be nominated by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, once confirmed there is no term limit. Currently the Supreme Court has a vacancy as of February 14, 2016 as stated earlier in this paper and President Obama has stated that he will fulfill his duties as President of the United States as spelled out in the constitution to nominate a candidate to fill the vacancy. What appears to make this a much bigger story is that this vacancy came during an election year. There are many groups expressing political concerns/opposition to the President making a selection of a Supreme Court nominee, since this decision could have long lasting political implications for the future. Also from the information that I currently have on the subject is that this is another opportunity for the Presidential hopefuls of both parties to express their views and show how they would better handle the …show more content…
As we examine the facts that are presented by the parties involved in this issue they appear to support a logical and well thought out position. One side (the President) trying to fulfill his constitutional duties to nominate a new Supreme Court Justice and on the other side (the Republican Party) trying to maintain the standards that have been adhered to for almost 80 years to postpone the nomination until after the election. I must add to this that as I have been reading more on this subject both sides have laid out what seems like very logical and persuasive cases to support each party’s claims. What would appear to be a factor that could convince someone that one party’s claim is logical and other’s is illogical would be that persons beliefs (Democrat or Republican).
The Significance From the start of this assignment this topic is both interesting yet has some very complicated aspects. This may be a perfect topic to apply critical thinking techniques upon to gain a better understanding. The topic has great significance and possible long lasting implication, on one side the President can help his party and add to his legacy by appointing a Justice and the Republican Party is striving to delay the nomination in hopes of winning the White House and appoint a Justice that is supportive of their
S., & Bedau H. (Eds.) Current issues and enduring questions: a guide to critical thinking and argument, with readings. (pp.551-552). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
The strategic model acknowledges that judges seek to achieve policy goals, but it also acknowledges that they are subject to certain restrictions in doing so. Since they cannot act accordingly to preference, they must act strategically to achieve their goals given by the restrictions. It argues that like politicians, justices make their decisions based off other’s decisions or make their decisions while trying to determine how another person will react from it. This decision style says justices would base their decisions on the influence of other justices.
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.
Not all agreed with the President’s choice of nominee. In fact, some referred to his choice as a judicial activist. (Baker, 2009) Yet, because Judge Sotomayor was replacing liberal Justice Souter, it was no surprise. As the hearings began, the conservative concerns were apparent among the hearing. Three issues that are listed above are believed to be the most relevant during the questioning. Impartiality was raised during a number of issues. Because of Judge Sotomayor’s bold opinions and previous speeches made, her ability as a judge to look at issues regarding the law impartially questioned many. For example, her belief regarding the deference to Congress’ intent was raised. The issue regarding her impartiality was seen in Senator Cardin’s (D-MD) questioning. Sotomayor responded by explaining how a judge’s job is to apply the law to the unique facts of the individual case. In addition, she repeatedly discussed the importa...
Congress should pass an amendment that requires a staggered 18-year term limit on the tenure of Supreme Court justices. Under this proposal, each justice would serve for 18 years, and the terms would be established so that there is a vacancy every two years. The vacancies would be on the first and third years of the presidential term. This would allow enough time so the senate would pass this nomination through and the president would not be denied one of his two appointees. The
When Jefferson came into office, he planned to institute the policies of the Democratic-Republicans in domestic affairs. The judicial system had gained a lot of power through the Federalists which forced Jefferson to attempt to shrink their influence. He ultimately prevailed, and even reduce...
Presently the supreme court has nine members, which include one Chief Justice and eight associate Justices. The Chief Justice Appoints each associate Justice to oversee one or more various circuits. Every year the Supreme Court has a term in which it revues selected cases. This term starts on the first Monday of October and ends either in the end of June or the beginning of July. During this term the Justices review one-hundred out of 6,000 or so cases with no clear guidelines on which ones they must look at.
The Supreme Court, which sees almost 150 petitions per week, called cert petitions, must carefully select the cases that they want to spend their time and effort on (Savage 981). If they didn’t select them carefully, the nine justices would quickly be overrun, so they have put in place a program to weed through the court cases to pick out the small number they will discuss. There are a few criteria that are used to judge whether or not a case will be tried. The first is whether or not the lower courts decided the case based on another one of the Supreme Court’s decisions for they will investigate these in order to withhold or draw back their conclusion that they made in their court case. Another is the case’s party alignment: sometimes the justices will pick cases that will align with their party beliefs, like trying to get a death row inmate off of his death sentence. They also make claims about the “life” of the case- the Supreme Court only hears “live” cases- they do not try to go back in time and re-mark a case that has long since been decided (Savage 981). Lastly, they like to take cases where the lower courts did not decide with one another -these cases can have t o do with interpretations of the law that have been left up to the lower courts and should be specifically defined by the Supreme Court (Savage 982).
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 government, he and his fellow justices sought to perpetuate their Federalist principles in the United States’ court system. In one of the most memorable court cases of all time--the case of Marbury v. Madison-- Marshall established the idea of judicial review and strengthened the power of the judicial branch in the government. Abiding by his Federalist ideals, Marshall decided cases that would explicitly limit the power of the state government and broaden the strengths of the national government. Lastly, the Marshall Court was infamous for determining the results of cases that dealt with the interpretation of the Constitution and the importance of contracts in American society. The Marshall Court, over the span of a mere three decades, managed to influence the life of every American citizen even to this day by impacting the development of the judicial branch, establishing a boundary between the state and national government, and making declarations on the sanctity of contracts ("The Marshall Court"...
Enduring Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking and Argument, with Readings. 5th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1998. 475-479.
The Honorable Jonathan Yates, former deputy general counsel for the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the U. S. House of Representatives, writes, “This lifetime term now enjoyed by justices not only contravenes the spirit of the Constitution, it counters the role intended for the court as a minor player in the equal judiciary branch of government. Term limits are needed to adjust the part of the court to the intent of the founding fathers” (Np). Judge Yates explains that the greatest powers of the Supreme Court did not originate from the Constitution or Congress, but from their own rulings (Np). The most prominent of which, was being Marbury v. Madison, in which the court granted itself judicial review, or the power to determine the constitutionality of legislation (Yates). Furthermore, the intended role of the court by the founding fathers was so small, that it did not have a home, or meet to hear any cases (Yates). An amendment to the Constitution removing the lifetime tenure of U.S. Supreme Court judges needs consideration by Congress. Lifetime tenure on the U.S. Supreme Court has led to four points that could not have been foreseen by the creators of the Constitution. The first problem resulting from the Supreme Court’s tenure policy is that judges’ are holding on to their seats, disregarding debilitating health issues. The second issue that has arisen from lifetime tenure is the use of strategic retirement by sitting judges to ensure a like-minded replacement. The third development resulting from lifetime tenure is the steady decrease in case decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court. The fourth and final effect lifetime tenure has had on the Supreme Court is an increase in celebrity status of the judges, which has le...
The case involved several questions the Supreme Court had to answer. The first question was whether or not Marbury had a right to the commission. The Court decided that he did have the right because the appointment was issued while Adams was still in office and took effect as soon as it was signed. The next question was to determine if the law gave Marbury remedy. The Court found that the law did provide remedy for Marbury. Adams signed the appointment and Marshall sealed it thereby giving Marbury legal right to the office he was appointed to. Therefore, denying delivery of the appointment to him was a violation of his rights and the law provides him remedy. The third question was to determine whether the Supreme Court had the authority to review acts o...
The debate over the legitimacy of the role of judicial review in the United States constitutional democracy has been around since the creation of the Constitution. The power of judicial review can be considered antidemocratic because it isn’t directly stated in the Constitution, of the authority of unelected judges and the fact that it sometimes resists the majority. Despite these claims, I believe judicial review is a constitutional doctrine, which arose from the historical process of persuasive reasoning in rulings, institutional prestige, the cooperation of political branches, and general public opinion.
Oral arguments influence the questions raised by Justices, which signal their concern about the external actors’ preferences in public policy, since not all this issues are presented in amicus briefs (Johnson 30). The purpose for this is for Justices to use discretion when making court decisions, in order to avoid affecting the public policy preference of the executive branch and Congress (Johnson 47). For Justices it is important to make court decisions that would not affect the future policy preference of all external
The significant impact Robert Dahl’s article, “Decision-Making in a Democracy: the Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker” created for our thought on the Supreme Court it that it thoroughly paved the way towards exemplifying the relationship between public opinion and the United States Supreme Court. Dahl significantly was able to provide linkages between the Supreme Court and the environment that surrounds it in order for others to better understand the fundamental aspects that link the two together and explore possible reasoning and potential outcomes of the Court.