Oral arguments still hold strong influence over Supreme Court decisions. During the first century of the Supreme Court, oral arguments had more importance as in the modern court. However, some legal scholars have argued that oral arguments no longer have the same influence on court decisions as they used to, because Justices have strong attitudes about personal policy preferences. Nonetheless, oral arguments help Justices gather information not presented in the briefs. Moreover, Justices use the proceedings to raise questions about personal policy preference. In addition, oral arguments serve as a strategic way for justices to interact amongst themselves, in order to acquire majority court decisions. Furthermore, the proceedings help Justices …show more content…
Cases like Dartmouth College v. Woodward, in which the effective oratory skills of the lead attorney, Daniel Webster, moved almost everyone present in the court that day with tears (Johnson 2). Also, oral arguments during that era of the court, served as the primary source of information for Justices. Nevertheless, in contrast to the Supreme Court of old, the modern Court has many ways by which Justices can access information about the court cases. Chief among these sources, which help Justices obtain information are, litigant briefs, brief amicus curiae, brief of certiorari, the media and lower court opinions (Johnson …show more content…
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
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.
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.
Palmer, Elizabeth A. "The Court and Public Opinion." CQ Weekly 2 Dec. 2000. CQ Weekly. SAGE Publications. Web. 1 Mar. 2000. .
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)
Every Justice has their own views and ideas on how cases are to be decided. The best approach to interpreting the Constitution is adopting the pragmatist approach, which is why it has lasted so many years. Opposite to originalism, where the Justices interpret the document by using the framers intended meaning at the time it was written, pragmatism follows the assumption that the Constitution is a living document; this means the interpretation of the document adapts to the growing and ever changing society. With this ideology, Justices may make decisions that do not follow the rulings on precedent cases; they also look at how their decisions will impact the current society, along with how the decision will affect future cases. Throughout Supreme Court history there have been a number of Justices that have used the pragmatic approach, including Justices Robert Jackson, Stephen Breyer, and Oliver
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
These limitations warrant a broader investigation into other politicized issues. The Supreme Court highly politicized the two issues we focus on, with abortion arguably being the most politicized topic in our country, so our research cannot extend to all Supreme Court issues, especially those which are not as politically polarizing. However, it is reasonable to expect that other high profile issues, such as the death penalty or same-sex marriage, have similar results to what we discovered for abortion and affirmative action. A further investigation into which issues prompt the most media coverage and hearing comments compared to abortion and affirmative action may show the particular importance of these two issues, especially abortion, in politics, the judiciary, and
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Columbia Law Review, 104, 1-20. doi:10.2307/4099343. Reynolds, S. (2009). The 'Standard'. An interview with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
After analyzing the discourse community of law and the detailed process lawyers take in order to write an effective appeals brief, one can see that lawyers have a very specific and unique way of communicating that includes certain jargon unfamiliar and possibly incomprehensible to the general public. Although writing an appeal brief is only one aspect of many that government prosecuting attorneys such as Kenny Elser face in their jobs on a daily basis, it is also a very necessary job because not only is it used by a single discourse community in the law profession but utilized by the discourse community of law as a whole.
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.
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
Public speaking is one of the most under rated skills learned in school, yet is one of the most valuable. The way you communicate shows a lot about you, and can influence other’s opinions of you. In every profession communicatiis important. Good communication skills, no matter what you plan to do in life, will help you out greatly and improve your chances against a harsh job market. I am majoring in Business Administration and Law, and communication is one of the biggest parts of business and law, yet communication is hardly ever taught in business classes for my major. I think that a communications class like public speaking, for example, should be not just for a college class, but taught in high school and middle school as well. I believe several classes would allow anyone to become an expert speaking. The only way to fully learn public speaking is to get up in front of people and talk to them. One can not learn public speaking from a book.
...minated or dead. The key to avoiding improper expressions is to speak or communicate clearly and effectively to obtain the best first impression of your listener.
Speaking is a natural ability given to most reluctant individuals. Since the beginning of time, it has been assumed that we have a right to speak and use words, thus we naturally begin our development of language during the early stages of live. After years of grasping and perfecting our vocabulary and language, it seems unnecessary to study the purpose of our development. Why, then, should we study “oral communication?” There are many purposes, benefits, and institutions that branch from oral communication. Of course, communication is the basis of interaction with other individuals through the use of expressions and words; however, through studying oral communication, one can take the words and expressions being used and apply them to his or her own life. After all, the most effective and useful knowledge is applied knowledge.