Do Politics have an Influence on the Supreme Court?

1409 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: The role of the supreme court in us

In this course we have had a brief but informative insight into the roles of government, and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is perceived as one body of the federal government, and it is a powerful one at most times. With of all this power and the decision making, it is normal to wonder if the court is influenced by political views, beliefs or even ideas. It is being questioned in our course if the Supreme Court is influenced by the dominant political ideas of the time and if the courts just follow those ideas and that is the topic I plan to address, but I also wish to address that politics are not the only influence on the Supreme Court and its decisions. I do feel that the court has been influenced because with so many views and beliefs it’s hard not to have an opinion even in such political matters. Although situations in political vary so do the opinions of those in the court, the effect is no different in any given situation. The influences are simply not just political either, but that is where the major opinion lies. I plan to look at not only how politics influence our Supreme Court, but how other matters such as personal opinion and background influence the court’s decisions on political discussions as well. In the eighteenth century our founding fathers created a new democracy and in that new democracy it seems that they wanted an apolitical Supreme Court to fit into that scenario. “However it is debatable whether or not a Supreme Court that is appointed by the President can ever truly be independent from political influences” (Biggs). In the past and even in the present it is not uncommon that the President has chosen those who share his beliefs, though this may create a political bias; “The Senate may just sign off on whatever the President wants, if filled with Presidential party members” (Biggs). This doesn’t exactly make for the system our

Show More
Related

  • Gibbons V. Ogden (1824)

    969 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Judicial Review: Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton

    1059 Words  | 3 Pages

    In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton argued that the Judicial Branch is the “least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution" and that it is “beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power” since it has “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” [*] While it is true that Hamilton wrote the Federalist Papers as propaganda to garner support for the Constitution by convincing New Yorkers that it would not take away their rights and liberties, it is also true that Article III of the Constitution was deliberately vague about the powers of the Judicial Branch to allow future generations to decide what exactly those powers should be. In the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, established the Court’s power of judicial review. However, as Jill Lepore, Harvard professor of American History, argued, “This was such an astonishing thing to do that the Court didn’t declare another federal law unconstitutional for fifty-four years” after declaring the Judicial Act of 1789 unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison. [*Jill Lepore] Alexander Hamilton was incorrect in his assertion that the Judicial Branch is the least dangerous to political rights and the weakest of the three government branches because judicial review has made the Supreme Court more powerful than he had anticipated. From 1803 to today, the controversial practice of judicial activism in the Supreme Court has grown—as exemplified by the differing decisions in Minor v. Happersett and United States v. Virginia—which, in effect, has increased the power of the Supreme Court to boundaries beyond those that Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist 78.

    Read More

  • Judicial Review of the Warren Court

    1556 Words  | 4 Pages

    When the rights of the American citizen are on the line than the judiciary should utilize the powers invested in them to protect and enforce what is constitutional. However, in times of controversy, where personal preference or aspects of religious or personal nature are at hand, the judiciary should exercise their power with finesse, thereby acting out judicial restraint. An example of such is in the case of Engel v. Vitale where Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the court directing the School District’s principal to read a prayer at the commencement of each school day. In cases that do not regard whether an action is constitutional or not, the judiciary should suppress their power of judicial review.

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Federal Court Judges

    1751 Words  | 4 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • The Brethren: Inside The Supreme Court By Bob Woodward And Scott Armstrong

    519 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court, by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong, gives the public an intimate description of the justices who serve on the Supreme Court in the 1969-1976. This book also gives an unprecedented look at the daily work and personal lives of the justices. The book describes the relationships the justices have with each other and the relationships they have with their clerks. Woodward and Armstrong give the reader insight to the justice's personalities and their personal agenda. There is an appearance that the justices use their positions on the Supreme Court to push their ideologies and create laws instead of enforcing the laws set by congress.

    Read More

  • John Marshall: Judicial Career and Constitutional Opinions

    717 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Great Chief Justice: John Marshall and the Rule of Law by Charles F. Hobson examines the judicial career of John Marshall, as well as the legal culture that helped to shape his political beliefs and his major constitutional opinions. The author sources much of his information from the formal opinions that Marshall issued during his judicial career. From these writings, Hobson presents Marshall 's views on law and government and provides explanations for what in Marshall 's life influenced those beliefs.

    Read More

  • Abortion Essay - Roe v. Wade and Morality

    947 Words  | 2 Pages

    Such precedent setting decisions are usually derived from the social, economic, political, and legal philosophy of the majority of the Justices who make up the Court, and also represent a segment of the American population at a given time in history. Seldom has a Supreme Court decision sliced so deeply into the basic fabric that composes the tapestry and direction of American law or instigated such profound changes in cherished rights, values, and personal prerogatives of individuals: the right to privacy, the structure of the family, the status of medical technology and its impact upon law and life, and the authority of state governments to protect the lives of their citizens.(3-4)

    Read More

  • Judiciary as the Most Powerful Branch of Government

    2619 Words  | 6 Pages

    In no other democracy does a court hold so much political power and in particular power over public policy decisions.

    Read More

  • Structure of American and California Governments

    9636 Words  | 20 Pages

    The United States of America is one of the most powerful nation-states in the world today. The framers of the American Constitution spent a great deal of time and effort into making sure this power wasn’t too centralized in one aspect of the government. They created three branches of government to help maintain a checks and balance system. In this paper I will discuss these three branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, for both the state and federal level.

    Read More

  • The Hollow Hope Chapter Summary

    1786 Words  | 4 Pages

    The Hollow Hope examines the following research question: when can judicial processes be used to produce social change? (Rosenberg 1). Rosenberg starts out the book by describing the two different theories of the courts. The first theory, the Dynamic Court view, views the court as being powerful, vigorous, and potent proponents of change (Rosenberg 1). The second theory, the Constrained Court view, views the court in the complete opposite way. With this view the court is seen as weak, ineffective, and powerless (Rosenberg 3). In this view there are three different constraints that restrict the courts from producing effective political and social change. These constraints include: limited nature of constitutional rights, lack of judicial independence, and the lack of tools the courts need (Rosenberg 35). Even though there are constraints on the court there are conditions where the court is able to overcome the constraints.

    Read More

  • Essay On The American Court System

    2361 Words  | 5 Pages

    The American Court System is an important part of American history and one of the many assets that makes America stand out from other countries. It thrives for justice through its structured and organized court systems. The structures and organizations are widely influenced by both the State and U.S Constitution. The courts have important characters that used their knowledge and roles to aim for equality and justice. These court systems have been influenced since the beginning of the United State of America. Today, these systems and law continue to change and adapt in order to keep and protect the peoples’ rights.

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Judicial Review

    1015 Words  | 3 Pages

    ruled by a similar group to that of our Supreme Court because, the members of

    Read More

  • Importance Of Oral Argument

    1579 Words  | 4 Pages

    In the modern court, Justices use oral arguments to gather information about policy that is not presented in the briefs. Moreover, Johnson argues that oral arguments serve to uncover certain policy issues in a case (Johnson 3). For that reason, the proceedings might have an affect the court’s decision. Furthermore, some issues of policy raised by judges might have to do with the current state of the law. However, for Justices it is important to find policies closest to their own values and preferences. In addition, the personal life experience of justices, ideology, political identification might play a role in their vote. Therefore, oral arguments help Justices raise questions about policy preference in order to make more informed decisions when voting on a

    Read More

  • Decision-Making in a Democracy: the Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker

    829 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Judges Must Make Law

    2340 Words  | 5 Pages

    Robert N. Clinton, ‘Judges Must Make Law: A Realistic Appraisal of the Judicial Function in a Democratic Society’ [1981-1982] 67 Iowa L. Rev. 711 http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/ilr67&div=38&g_sent=1&collection=journals accessed 12 February 2012

    Read More

More about Do Politics have an Influence on the Supreme Court?

Open Document