“The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court is a book written by Jeffrey Toobin. Jeffrey Toobin is a staff writer for the New Yorker, as well as, a CNN senior legal analyst. “The Nine” starts in the Reagan and ends in 2007. Toobin discusses all the major cases that the Supreme Court made a ruling on during that time period. He also talks about each of the Justices, their personalities and how they came to make the decisions they did. One of the things that I found most interesting about the book was that Toobin described how the Justices became Justices. Why the President, at the time, nominated them and who were the runners up for the position. Toobin had a way of making each of the Justices come alive, showing glimpses of who they were. He captured their personalities and made me see them as individual people, instead of merging them together as the Supreme Court, as I used to before reading this book. The book was based on interviews that Toobin conducted. One thing I didn’t like was that he didn’t say how he knew the Justice’s personal feelings. While reading the book, I wondered if it was based on interviews of the Justices, or if it was second hand information he obtained. Enlightening book about the inner working of the Supreme Court. From 1992 to 2005, the Supreme Court’s decisions mostly mirrored public opinion. After Rehnquist’s passing in 2005, the Supreme Court has swung more in the direction of the conservative party than in pervious years. The conservative agenda is becoming more prominent than it was under Rehnquist and before O’Connor retired. Besides swing the court to the consertive side, Rehnquist’s passing also ended the longest running group of Justices to serve together. They had... ... middle of paper ... ... eye. While Toobin gave me great insight to the people who make up the Supreme Court, this book has become dated in some aspects. Stevens and Souter no longer are a part of the Supreme Court. As this book shows, each individual Justice makes up the personality of Supreme Court, which is now sightly different, without Justices Stevens and Souter. The nine justices in the book served together longer than any other group of Justices. Toobin describes the how each of the Justices got appointed to the Supreme court, including the failed nominations that ultimately brought each of the Justices to the Supreme court. The Supreme Court shapes our country in ways that no other branch of government can, because they are appointed for life. Ultimately, nominating a Supreme Court Justics, is one of the most far reaching and lasting way a president can shape our nation.
Although a portion of Leuchtenburg’s evidence supporting his opinion on which case constituted a constitutional revolution involved the shift in the Court’s decision-making, the question of the reason for the shift in the Court begs to be explained. At the time, during the case of West Coast v. Parrish, the court seemed to be in sorts fueled by politics. The Justices were concerned with the consequences that could very well up rise from their reluctance to approve the standard legislation. In other words, they may have shifted their votes in hopes of saving the traditional foundation. Justice Roberts’ voting decisions would then need to be closely examined seeing that he supported the liberal side in 1934 concerning the case of Nebbia v. New York, supported the conservative side in 1935-1936 concerning the Rail Pension and Tipaldo, and then returned to suppor...
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.
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.
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.
In this essay, I will explain why Texas should retain the partisan election of judges. Texas is one of the few states that elect their judges using a Partisan voting method. Partisan elections can be unfair and can misinform the voter. A high legal position such as a judge should never be chosen in such a manner. Partisan elections often cost more than nonpartisan elections in campaigning. Partisan elections are also more likely to lead to straight ticket voting or mindless voting. Partisan elections also lead to more campaign contributions and can increase the power of constituencies. Lastly partisan elections can cause an imbalance in equal represent the population. Therefore, Partisanship voting does not belong in the courts of Texas and
Jost, Kenneth. "The Federal Judiciary." CQ Researcher 8.10 (1998). CQ Researcher. SAGE Publications. Web. 01 Mar. 2011. .
I think that it is important to remember that the framers were fairly new at creating a government unlike any other government in the world and their main concern was freedom from government control. It appears that their biggest mistake was not applying the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the national government. It also becomes problematic in that two men, having different political beliefs and opinions, can interpret the same law in very different ways. Thus, the Supreme Court, established in 1789, which consists of the Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices, is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law. In other words, when there is disagreement concerning constitutional law, the Supreme Court settles it. The power to nominate the Justices is vested in the President of the United States, and appointments are made with the advice and consent of the Senate. This in itself has become conflictual due to affiliations which could certainly sway decisions in favor of one particular political
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)
Shnayerson, Robert. The Illustrated History of The Supreme Court Of The United States. New York: Abrams, 1986.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Powe, L. A. Scott. The Warren Court and American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Belknap of Harvard UP, 2000. Print.
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.
ruled by a similar group to that of our Supreme Court because, the members of
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.