The U.S Supreme Court’s decision in Bush vs Gore, which effectively awarded the presidency to George Bush, was widely foreseen to diminish public respect for the U.S. Supreme Court. The Courts speaking of itself into a political disagreement and the perfect connection between the Justices votes and their supposed one-sided commitments raised widespread accusations that the Court had reduced a deliberately political decision. The willingness of Justices who ordinarily defended states rights to enforce severe constitutional limits upon Florida’s election trials made the decision particularly hateful to many of the Courts critics. Awful predictions began among the Justices themselves. In his rebellious view, Justice Stephen Breyer warned that the decision threatened a self-inflicted wound. Justice John Paul Stevens spoke a similar threat. Stevens wrote that though we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nations confidence in the judge as an independent guardian of the rule of law. Stevens also feared that the Courts opinion can only offer credibility to the most pessimistic judgment of the work of judges throughout the land. Hughes referred to the Courts notorious pro-slavery decision in Dred Scott vs Sandyford its disapproval to paper money in the legal tender cases in 1869 and its nullification of the first peacetime federal income tax in 1895. Hughes metaphor is remembered mainly in connection with his explanations about Dred Scott, and many of the Courts have predicted that Bush vs Gore will have the same lasting notoriety. Criticism of the Court is almost only absent from the popular media and there... ... middle of paper ... ...eme Court ordered a statewide verification of votes. The day after the Florida Supreme Court had ordered a verification, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a momentary stay in enforcing the Florida Supreme Court's order. The five justices voting in favor of the stay were the same five who had been moving the Rehnquist Court to the right for more than a decade. The first hearing of Bush vs Gore transmitted to the nation what would happen if the Court took more action in the case. The Court's third and final involvement in the 2000 presidential election came days later. In its unsigned opinion, the Court explained that it had voted to put a stop to the Florida recount. The U.S Supreme Court sent the case down to the Florida Supreme Court, which had no other but to dismiss it. The presidential election of 2000 had been decided, by the vote of one Supreme Court justice.
According to William E. Leuchtenburg, along with other successors, West Coast Hotel v. Parrish was the case that constituted a constitutional revolution. Leuchtenburg gives evidence of the main arguments of his opinion concerning the shift in the Court during this particular case as well as others that came after it. The significance of this case was that it upheld the “minimum wage” legislation passed by Washington State even though there was the uprising issue of “liberty of contract.” The presented case of West Coast Hotel v. Parrish provoked a constitutional revolution in the United States (Leuchtenburg, pg. 163). This case was not an open-and-shut case and encountered much opposition especially from the review of Tipaldo. As a result, it overturned the decision made by the trial court, which was based on the case, Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (Leuchtenburg, pg. 164).
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
The decision was a 6-3 decision. The Justices that agreed with the ruling of the court were Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, White, Stevens, and O’Connor. The Justices that did not agree were Powell, Berger, and Rehnquist.
In January of 2010, the United States Supreme Court, in the spirit of free speech absolutism, issued its landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, marking a radical shift in campaign finance law. This ruling—or what some rightfully deem a display of judicial activism on the part of the Roberts Court and what President Obama warned would “open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in…elections” —effectively and surreptitiously overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, struck down the corporate spending limits imposed by Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, and extended free speech rights to corporations. The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief historical overview of campaign finance law in the United States, outline the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, and to examine the post-Citizens United political landscape.
...n and scrutiny to judicial review. It can be inferred that if in the present, judicial review was seen as unconstitutional, then one might view Gibson’s oppositions as one views Marbury v. Madison now.
The domestic policies and administrations of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and William Jefferson Clinton are in some ways similar, but in other ways very different. The two men were very domestic-oriented presidents, focusing largely on America, and not the outside world. Both Democrats, they supported Federal Government programs to aid the American People. These programs were not necessary, but the presidents felt that they would aid Americans. Roosevelt created many jobs for the unemployed. He did this with such acts as the Unemployment Relief Act, which created the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Civil Works Administration gave temporary jobs to the unemployed during an especially harsh winter, and the Works Progress Administration spent about $11 billion employing people to work on government projects. Roosevelt also provided for money to be given to states to help increase employment. This includes the Federal Relief Administration, that gave $3 million to states to pay wages for work projects as well as direct dole payments. The Tennessee Valley Act dammed up the Tennessee river and created jobs, inexpensive hydroelectric power, cheap nitrates, improved navigation of the river, low cost housing, reforestation, and the restoration of eroded soil.
“NEW YORK TIMES v. UNITED STATES.” The Oyez Project. llT Chicago-Kent College Of Law, n.d. Web. 5 Dec. 2013.
Vbansal. “The Effects of Dred Scott V. Sanford.” Associated Content. 06 August 2007. 26 May 2010.
Gitlow vs. New York is a case that influences the integrity of U.S legislative system importantly. In the 1925s, Benjamin Gitlow, a left wing socialist, published speeches of anti-government to advocate a new better communist government. His action caused the charge as unpopular and dangerous speech for the whole society from the New York state government, and his behavior became a court case. According to the website thefreedictionary.com, that “The opinions expressed in” “The Revolutionary Age” and “The Left Wing Manifesto” “formed the bases for the defendant's convictions under Sections 160 and 161 of the penal law of New York, which were the criminal anarchy statutes” (n.p). “The Revolutionary Age” and “The Left Wing Manifesto” ar...
After many more suits were filed, oral arguments in Bush v. Gore were brought before the US Supreme Court on December 11, 2000 by lawyers representing both sides. Due to the nature of the case, the court gave its opinion only 16 hours after hearing the arguments. Bush’s representation questioned, Does recounting in Florida violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution? Because all the votes were being counted unevenly, with standards varying from county to county, recounts in counties where he could have majority were not being conducted. Bush argued the decision went against the Constitution stating “nor shall any State.
The United States of America is often touted as the guiding beacon of democracy for the entirety of the modern world. In spite of this tremendous responsibility the political system of the United States retains some aspects which upon examination appear to be significantly undemocratic. Perhaps the most perplexing and oft misunderstood of these establishments is the process of electing the president and the institution known as the Electoral College. The puzzle of the Electoral College presents the American people with a unique conundrum as the mark of any true democracy is the citizens’ ability to elect their own ruling officials. Unfortunately, the Electoral College system dilutes this essential capacity by introducing an election by
Palmer, Elizabeth A. "The Court and Public Opinion." CQ Weekly 2 Dec. 2000. CQ Weekly. SAGE Publications. Web. 1 Mar. 2000. .
The evolution of power gained by the Federal government can be seen in the McCuloch versus Maryland (1819) case. This case des...
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.