Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Judicial Activism And Restraint
Gideon v wainwright purpose
Judicial Activism And Restraint
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Judicial Activism And Restraint
The United States Constitution is one of the oldest documents in U.S. history created by our Founding Fathers to limit the power of the federal government and protect the natural born rights of citizens. These forward thinking individuals realized that sometimes people in positions of authority could potentially abuse their power hence the creation and framework of United States Constitution was established. The Founding Fathers intentions which were deemed fair and consistent would give people the protection they once feared could be taken away. Though these intentions were viewed in the eyes of fairness and consistency the Constitution could be interpreted multiple ways.
The Constitution could be viewed in two different ways, a strict or
…show more content…
However, judicial activism has some merit and shouldn 't be overlooked. Positive takeaways for judicial activism is that it allows judges to have a voice and take into consideration the facts they have been given that may be unfair and go against the presented case. Judicial activism gives judges the opportunity to fight against the injustices within a case that they personally think is wrong and direct their decision off of their personal beliefs (apecsec.org). Another pro for judicial activism is that it instills trust within our judges. When judges are sworn into office they given an oath that says they will bring forth justice within reasonable limitations. (apecsec.org). Identifying the positives of judicial activism one must recognize there are negatives as well. One would be when taking part in judicial activism there is a set law for judges to base their decision off the Constitution as written into law. However, judges may approach their decision making as if no …show more content…
This decision becomes an example or authority for judges deciding similar issues later”) (law.cornell.edu). The Gideon & Betts cases factor into account that Gideon flat out overturned the prior Betts case and broke with precedent by saying all defendants have a right to counsel and could potentially be seen as violating stare decisis and being a case of judicial activism that strays from the courts designated role. However, the case of Gideon v Wainwright presented an issue defined in the Constitution whereas as the court had already ruled on and it didn 't violate the doctrine of political questions or ruling on political things meant to be settled by legislatures. As the supreme court reached its decision in Gideon by stating that right to counsel established in prior cases and applying the 6th and 14th amendment for federal cases which extends the Bill of Rights within states, this case (in state of Florida) appears to be squarely within the realm of the supreme court and they were correct in hearing his
There have been several different Supreme Court cases over the years that have been influential to most everybody who is aware of them. For example, the case of Roe vs. Wade was and still is immensely influential and is the cause of pro-life/pro-choice debates. Another important case was Marbury vs. Madison, which was the first Supreme Court case to ever declare that a law passed by Congress was unconstitutional. Even though those two cases were a couple of the most important and influential in American history, nothing compares to the influence that the case of Gideon vs. Wainwright has provided, in my opinion. This case was tremendously important to the way that law enforcement is to be carried out in that it forced detectives and FBI’s and the like to “do their homework” before declaring someone guilty of a crime.
At his trial Gideon could not afford a lawyer, so he asked the judge to appoint him one, Gideon argued that the Court should appoint him one because the Sixth Amendment says that everyone is entitled to a lawyer. The judge turned down his request, saying that the state did not have to pay a poor person's legal defense unless he was charged with a capital crime or that "special circumstances" existed. Gideon was left to represent himself in court.
In his speech, The Making of the U.S. Constitution, Gordon Wood discusses the history of how the U.S. Constitution came to be. He explains what factors contributed to its making and what the general consensus was about it during the time. He explains that the reason the constitution was created was because the government needed more power. Why did the government need more power? In short, to unify the 13 states and make life, in general, easier for its citizens, officers, artisans, and even to help with commercial interests (Wood, 2012).
This was a very controversial issue, because the court faced the decision of whether to go with the laws that the forefathers had come up with or grant people right to counsel so that the truth can be brought out. The issue was whether the state of Florida violated Gideon's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, because they did not provide him with the assistance of counsel for his criminal defense.
It is simple to be confused by the federal court judges and their decisions and how they go about them and how they are in their position. Personally, I always thought they were elected by the Supreme Court or someone or something higher than them. But I was very surprised to know that they were appointed (assigned a job or role to). This leaves the judges from having to go through a process of campaigning and running against others. Although by being unelected officials it has both pros and cons. Pros being, that they are trusted enough to handle cases that go to this point and being able to make a decision under the law to better the society. Cons being, if a federal court judge makes any misdemeanor or crime they have the ability to be impeached
In June 1961, Clarence Gideon was arrested and charged with breaking and entering in Bay Harbor. He was tried in a Florida Circuit Court in August 1961. Gideon stated in Court that he was unable to afford a lawyer and asked the Judge to appoint one for him. The Judge said he was sorry but he could not do that, because the laws of Florida called for appointment of counsel only when a defendant was charged with a capital offense [where the death penalty might be imposed]. When the Florida courts denied his claim, he went to the Supreme Court. In his prison he submitted a petition, handwritten in pencil, arguing that Florida had ignored a rule laid down by the Supreme Court: “ that all citizens tried for a felony crime should have aid of counsel.” Oral arguments were heard on January 15,1962 and the decision was announced on March 18, 1963.
On the morning of January 8th 1962, the Supreme Court received mail from prisoner 003826 of Florida State Prison, also known as Clarence Earl Gideon. In the envelope contained a hand written letter with questionable grammar from Gideon claiming that he was denied a fair trial due to the absence of a lawyer. Gideon’s writ of certiorari was an in forma pauperis petition or pauper’s petition. Due to the fact that most paupers’ petitions are from inmates who do not have the legal means to properly file a certiorari, the Court had special methods of handling cases such as Gideon’s. Paupers’ petitions according to Justice Frankfurter were “almost unintelligible and certainly do not present a clear statement of issues necessary for our understanding”(Lewis 35). It is reasonable to assume that the Court would not spend an exorbitant amount of time going through mounds of paupers’ petitions trying to find a case that seemed presentable. Statistically, about thirteen percent of petitions for certiorari on the regular docket are paupers’ petitions. In addition, only three percent of paupers’ petitions end up being granted. Nevertheless, Gideon’s case was treated just as equally as any other in forma pauperis case. Gideon’s handwritten documents were held for a month until Florida authorities replied to petition. A month passed by and Gideon’s petition was mailed to the office of Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1962. A conference was held in June to discuss whether or not Gideon’s petition should be granted. Gideon’s case was granted three days after the conference and from that day forward Gideon’s fight for justice would ensue. In the eyes of Gideon, an attorney was a fundamental right of due process. However, his biggest ch...
Judicial activism and judicial restraint are two opposing philosophies when it comes to the Supreme Court justices' interpretations of the United States Constitution; justices appointed by the President to the Supreme Court serve for life,and thus whose decisions shape the lives of "We the people" for a long time to come.
Wainwright also hindered federalism because it gave more rights to the individual people rather than the state government. After the Gideon v. Wainwright decision, Tobias Simon, a lawyer from the Florida Civil Liberties Union that offered to represent Gideon the second time the case was tried, reflected on the fact that “‘in the future, the name “Gideon” will stand for the great principle that the poor are entitled to the same type of justice as are those who are able to afford counsel’” (Lewis 239). Rather than before where the states decided what an accused person’s fate is when deciding if he or she should have a counsel, the power is shifted to the individual: it is his or her decision if he or she wants a lawyer. Furthermore, it is guaranteed to every individual, regardless of identity. Because “the poorest and least powerful of men--a convict with not even a friend to visit him in prison-- can take his cause to the highest court in the land and bring about a fundamental change in the law”, the state courts’ authority to determine right from wrong is diminished because any individual can fight it by bringing it to the Supreme Court’s attention, just like Clarence Earl Gideon did (Lewis 218). Every individual now has the power to address a problem created by the courts and the power to determine if they want a lawyer to help them, which, in turn,
A constitution is the system of fundamental principles according to which a nation is governed. Our founding fathers created the US Constitution to set specific standards for our country. We must ask ourselves why our founding fathers created the Constitution in the first place. America revolted against the British due to their monarchy form of government. After the American Revolution, each of the original 13 colonies operated under its own rules of government. Most states were against any form of centralized rule from the government. They feared that what happened in England would happen again. They decided to write the Articles of Confederation, which was ratified in 1781. It was not effective and it led to many problems. The central government could not regulate commerce between states, deal with foreign governments or settle disputes. The country was falling apart at its seams. The central government could not provide assistance to the state because there wasn’t a central army. When they realized that the Articles of Confederation was not up to par, they held a convention, known as the Constitutional Convention of 1787. As a result of t...
The Supreme Court was important in both suppressing and aiding the Civil Rights Movement. However, decisions taken by the President, the continued white opposition and improvements in media communications also had an effect. Although all were important, the Civil Rights movement alone would have reached the same end without the help of the Supreme Court, and the devotion of its many members and leaders is the major factor in advancing Civil Rights.
as it does supporters. But, if we do not allow the Supreme Court to translate
Judicial activism is loosely defined as decisions or judgements handed down by judges that take a broad interpretation of the constitution. It is a decision that is more of a reflection of how the judge thinks the law should be interpreted rather than how the law has or was intended to be interpreted. There are many examples of judicial activism; examples include the opinions of Sandra Day O'Connor in the Lynch v. Donnelly and the Wallace v. Jaffree trials. Sandra Day argues for the changing of the First Amendment's ban on "establishment" of religion into a ban on "endorsement" of religion. Others include US v. Kinder where our congress passed legislation that would require a minimum sentence for persons caught distributing more than 10 grams of cocaine. Judge Leval used a weighing method suggested by the sentencing commission rather than the method required by congress. The different method used did not trigger the mandatory sentence whereas the congressional method would have.
The document I chose to write about is the United States Constitution. When the thirteen British colonies in North America declared their independence in 1776, they laid down that “governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The “colonies” had to establish a government, which would be the framework for the United States. The purpose of a written constitution is to define and therefore more specifically limit government powers. After the Articles of Confederation failed to work in the 13 colonies, the U.S. Constitution was created in 1787.
One of those disadvantages is that people cannot be certain that an elected candidate will be the better judge. Judges should be appointed based on their legal training, education, and experience. People often times do not take into account those issues of a judge. They simply vote in the best politician based upon that candidate’s presentation and politics. Another issue is campaign contributions given to candidates during election times. Many people see this as “buying a judge”. If that candidate is given large sums of money from a donor to help his election, then if elected, that judge will feel obligated to rule in that donor’s favor. Elected judges may not be more qualified than their opponent. But because they can raise more money, then they are elected easily. Furthermore, once a judge has won an election, the judge becomes indebted to the corporations and/or unions that contributed to his or her