The United States Supreme Court

It takes time to reach the highest court in the country; currently the average Supreme Court justice age is nearly seventy years old. It is reasonable to think that biases may be hardened and unable to keep up with the popular opinion by this age. For example, take public approval of same-sex marriage, which in the six short years from 2009 to 2015 rose nearly twenty percent in the polls, bringing it to a 55% majority. How does a Supreme Court with a stagnant appointment system react to such a sudden sway in opinion? Apparently, surprisingly well. For whatever reason, the decisions of the Supreme Court seem to align with public opinion. For instance, in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, the supreme court reached a 5-4 majority in for same-sex marriage. Public opinion at the time was 55% in favor, and remarkably, the portion of justices in favor was within less than one percent of that value. Perhaps the Supreme Court acknowledges its role to interpret the Constitution through the eyes of the people, as Justice Kennedy describes. Or perhaps it is due to the powerful weight swing positions carry in the Supreme Court. Whatever the mechanism, the Supreme Court does a remarkable job of staying neck and neck with popular opinion.

The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican

In order for the Supreme Court to be democratically legitimate should be both politically and socially representative. In a diverse country such as the USA it’s extremely difficult to be politically representative however the Court is even less socially representative. There is currently and has only ever been 1 member of the supreme court who is of Hispanic origin compared to the approximately 17% of the population.

Beforehand, I had just viewed the Supreme Court has a high up court system that did things the way that they did simply because they were the Supreme Court and could do things their way. However, I was very unaware as to the corruption and how out of control things have become over recent years. While the Supreme Court is a high up court, everything should still be decided with the people’s will as the main factor, unfortunately, that is no longer the case. Having power does not grant one the ability to appear as superior to the Constitution and its original intentions. Of course, the original founders did not have the intention for the Supreme Court to end up with the amount of distorted power that it has today.

The Supreme Court is not infallible. At the same time, the Supreme Court can do no wrong. Here is the social paradox that is the Supreme Court. They are supposed to declare an act constitutional or not, but that is fundamentally flawed based on the cultural atmosphere at the time. Each justice is a victim of society, just as every person in the United States and the world is, therefore they are subject to the whims of their culture and how they grew up, leading to some less than optimal results. The Supreme Court is intended to work as a moral compass for the nation, deciding what is good and bad, but society can be fundamentally flawed, as illustrated by many cases brought to the Supreme Court. The case of Dred Scott v. Sandford is a clear

The American Supreme Court is the highest court in the country. The Supreme Court has the final say in issues that have been brought to lower court’s but have been unresolved. The job of the Supreme Court is to determine if the Constitution says what the end result of an issue should be. The Supreme Court was designed to be unbiased and make it’s choices purely based on what the law says. The nine people who are appointed to the Supreme Court are called Justices. They are elected to their position for the remainder of their life or until their resignation. As a result of the tenure given to a Justice spots do not open up often at all. The President nominates the Justice based on a few factors. First off experience is required. Many of the Justices where judges in a lower court such as the Court of Appeals or had a very well respected private practice. Secondly the President often nominates someone who shares his own political ideology. If the President is a conservative it is likely that he will appoint a conservative judge to the Supreme Court. Lastly gender and ethnicity have recently become a factor in a Presidents decision. Up until 1967 all of the Justices had been white males to fix this problem Lyndon Johnson appointed Thurgood Marshall the first black Justice. Later Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Connor the first female Justice. However a presidential nomination is not enough to be a Justice. The nominee must be confirmed by the Senate also by a majority vote.

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD AFFIRM THE LOWER COURT’S DECISION BECAUSE THE ASTON CITY PANHANDALING ORDINANCE IS A VALID, CONTENT-NEUTRAL TIME, PLACE, AND MANNER RESTRICTION OF SPEECH AND THEREFORE DOES NOT VIOLATE PETITIONERS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT. (Jerica Johnson)

The Supreme Court of the United States did not apply sound reasoning in formulating their final opinion in Reed v. Reed. Even though, the Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous in ruling the Idaho statute unconstitutional because of violation to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The reason why I believe that they did not apply sound reasoning in Reed v. Reed is because the level of scrutiny applied. The Supreme Court applied the rational basis test instead of strict scrutiny. Commonly, when the Supreme Court applies the rational basis test to a law, the law passes because it can be proven that it is “rationally related to a legitimate government interest” . There was no precedent for this case because it was the first time that the Supreme Court heard a case on discrimination against women in violation of the Equal Protection Clause( 404 U.S. 71, 72 ).”

In Scotus blog, the United States Supreme Court judges against a familiar foe were at their best. It was very easy putting doctrinal clodhopping aside in trying out the amateur court team. Birchfield v. North Dakota a Wednesday court case involving laws imposing on motorist’s criminal penalties for being suspected of drunken driving (Birchfield v. North Dakota, 2016). Furthermore, when a chemical test, especially for breath or blood, was rejected. North Dakota with other eleven states passed measures avoiding annoying issues. These include how to obtain a warrant before you stick into the driver 's arm a needle or a tube in the driver 's mouth. Refusal to take a blood test led to the arrest of Danny Birchfield, who argued that this law was violating the Fourth Amendment typically requiring a police warrant to conduct a search. For North Dakota, motorists have to give their consent to chemical tests when they intend to drive in the state. Danny Birchfield challenged this saying that consent, which is legally mandated, does not permit at all. Birchfield’s problem was drunk driving since police had already arrested after he was driving into a ditch and forcefully attempting to turn out of it. He then emerged out of his car smelling alcohol. Fellow petitioners, in this case, were also losers after consolidating to his case. After almost hitting the stop sign, Steve Michael Bylund was also pulled over consequently holding his car on the road. An empty glass of wine is what was

In the first scenario, there was a motion to suppress the rifle and shells that were seized from the glove compartment and under the passenger seat. However, the Supreme Court established three components that an officer may search in vehicle searches if the search is valid. Conduct a search of the passenger compartment of a car and of the contents therein if it is incident to a lawful arrest. Search the entire car and open the trunk and any packages or luggage found therein that could reasonably contain the items they are looking for. Search a container in a car if there is probable cause to believe that it holds contraband or seizable items, even in the absence of probable cause to search the car. In addition, there are three cases that

Acclaim for asserting the United States Supreme Court as a substantial participant in the American structure of government has been ascribed to the guidance of John Marshall as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835. By 1835, the Supreme Court had attained a level of equality with the prowess and prestige as that of Congress and the Executive that was not present before John Marshall was appointed to the position. Central to this development was the Court 's adoption of the Constitution as its distinct reserve. Chief Justice John Marshall utilized judicial review to eliminate the Supreme Court from the socio-political conflicts in government and to institute the rule of law based on the principles established in the Constitution of the Unites States. Marshall and his colleagues erected the Court 's recognized power by effectively affirming an assertion to explain the Constitution and subsequently supplant the Constitution as supreme law in the commonplace sequence of arbitration and by the end of his judgeship firmly supplanted the Supreme Court’s role in the U.S. system of government.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled on a major case that will affect millions of Americans in one way or another. This ruling has been decades in the making and was certainly going to be controversial no matter how it turned out. The key issue is whether or not gays and lesbians had the same constitutional right that heterosexual people do in regards to marriage. Not too long ago the concept of this even being considered by the high court would’ve been unfathomable. The 5 to 4 court ruling favoring the plaintiffs has shocked many generations of religious and conservative people.

The Supreme Court is the most influential court in America. There are several significant levels of authority contained within it. The President of the United States appoints Justices into the Supreme Court. America is a grand and beautiful place, but that does not make it exempt from the cruelty of human nature. So the Supreme Court was established for the intention of making sure US Constitution, Federal Law, and US treaties are dealt with properly. If the Supreme Court was not in place in America, one could easily see that America would have a copious amount of unresolved national and state issues. Although the Supreme Court is to follow the Constitution and the rules within it, one cannot immediately assume that each court case is in agreement with the truths of the Bible.

Why would the Supreme Court ever make such an irrational decision that would change American Politics forever? The Supreme Court has so much power and a very important job. The Citizens United ruling gave corporations and unions permission to spend unlimited amounts of money on ads and other political tools for the battle of an individual candidate. Likewise, the court’s decision stated that corporations and labor unions were able to spend as much money as they wanted to convince people to vote either for or against a candidate. Questionable Politics and the return of campaign finance issues are becoming a reality once again due to the damage Citizens United has done to our democracy.

There are many different reasons a person can find themselves in a court as the defendant.