Cream In The Coffee Case Study

I believe that Mendoza’s credentials are superior to Harrison’s credentials. Mendoza’s credentials include being a member of the New York City Police Department from 1965 to 1976. He was the District Attorney of Brooklyn from 1976 to 1980, Assistant U.S. Attorney Eastern District, and a Federal District Judge, Eastern District. Meanwhile, Harrison went to Walnut Park Country Day School, Phillips Exeter, Princeton undergraduate, and Harvard Law School. He was a Rhodes Scholar and was the editor of the Harvard Law Review. Josh stated that he was the dean of Harvard Law School. He also clerked for Warren Berger. Mendoza attended P.S. 138 in Brooklyn and the City University of New York. Although Harrison has incredible credentials, attending extremely

How and why?

After listening to the “cream in the coffee” discussion, my position on Harrison’s warning against a Bill of Rights did not change. Sam received a call which led to the discovery that Harrison appeared to have been the author of an unsigned memo on privacy issues thirty years prior. Harrison stated to Bartlet, Sam, and Toby that Judges are bound to interpret the Constitution within the strict parameters of the text itself, and that the Constitution doesn 't provide for a right of privacy. Rights must emanate from the Constitution. Bartlet proceeded to ask Harrison hypothetical questions about the use of cream in coffee. Bartlet and Harrison agreed that no “free speech” argument could be made about cream in coffee. When Bartlet asked if Harrison would have an objection to the state of New Hampshire passing a law banning the use of cream in coffee, which would cost the votes of coffee drinkers everywhere, he replied that he would have a strong objection, but he would have no constitutional basis to strike down the law when the case is brought to the Supreme

As stated in “How Far is a Judge Free in Rendering a Decision?”, there are “conflicting interests” in society. However, there are times when a Judge could be in doubt and cannot tell that society would have a must more just handle on the matter. I believe that public opinion should act as a backbone in the selection of a Supreme Court nominee, but should not dominate the process. Supreme Court Judges make decisions which affect society as a whole, especially particular groups of people. Society has a vast variety of opinions on a vast array of issues, ranging from abortion to gun control to war. However, some Americans may want a Judge to be on the Court because the Judge has the same opinion as them. They may not take the credentials and past experience of the Judge into consideration, allowing for them to be blinded by their own bias. Americans are also selfish in this sense, by wanting a Judge to serve on the Court because he or she shares the same opinion as them on a particular matter but fails to acknowledge how this opinion could affect the lives of millions. I also think that the Senate would confirm a nominee for a vacancy on the Court if public opinion was factored into the selection, rather than it just being the President’s