From the beginning, both said that race and ethnic beliefs would not come in the way of decision making. Sotomayer made it apparent that she followed the Judicial Restraint philosophy and ultimately believe “what the constitution/laws stated is exactly how they are supposed to be interpreted”, not personal thoughts included. Thomas was the complete opposite, concluding that he followed the Judicial Activism philosophy. But, after reading research, it can be determined that no matter what philosophy that they followed, the judges background and ethnicity influenced their rulings and public
To understand the debate over the second amendment, one needs to look at the Supreme Court ruling in the Heller case and the Constitutional impact it made. What is the procedural history of the case? At the District Court level, the Courts ruled in favor of the city of Chicago upholding the ban on handguns by dismissing the case. The case was then appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. A number of other suits were added in the appeal contesting Chicago and Oak Park
Rudolf von Jhering, a German jurist recognised law as a means of ordering society in a situation where there are many competing interests, not all economic. His view was that legal developments were driven by the constant tussle between individuals and groups within society to have their interests portrayed and supported by the law. He expressed that law could be used in self-interest by individuals and groups in order to achieve advances in their own purposes. As a result, the law acts to determine the true balance between different interests by examining the value of each. The American legal scholar, Roscoe Pound, was influenced by Jhering.
Policy is an important consideration for the courts to decide the duty owed by defendants. Lord Bridge suggested that it should be fair, just and reasonable when imposing duty on defendant. It is thought that the imposition of a duty solely base on foreseeability of damage is not desirable. As Winfield and Jolowicz suggests that “the court must decide not simply whether there is or is not a duty, but whether there should or should not be one.” For the purpose of this essay, I will discuss how policy can influence the imposition of duty. The most important policy concern has always been the “floodgates argument”.
In this suit, legal ramifications must be a factor by the different states. Congress has the authorization through this clause to supervise the free flows of trade. Deciding in this case whether or not Congress has a control here is examined. This decision will be made by the court regarding the subject of regulation and how it will be done. According to the Commerce Clause the state statute is unconstitutional because it is a burden on interstate commerce to the state of Confusion.
In turn it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations." Marriage is not about religion, race, or sexual preference. Marriage is about a union between two people who commit themselves to one another, excluding all others, and creating a stable life together to be productive members of society. The Goodridge court stated that their decision, “does not disturb the fundamental value of marriage in our society…[t]hat same-sex couples are willing to embrace marriage's solemn obligations of exclusivity, mutual support, and commitment to one another is a testament to the enduring place of marriage in our laws and in the human spirit." It is unconstitutional for the government to infringe upon basic rights of citizens to get married solely because of their racial or sexual
I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. . . .
Court History and Purpose 1 Court and Its Purpose The judicial system interprets and applies the law through a system of courts, each with a specific position and function. The judicial system serves a very important purpose in interpreting the law. Its purposes is to fairly administer justice, protect rights and liberties, settle disputes, and interpret the Constitution. The three main functions of courts are upholding the law, protecting individuals, and resolving disputes. (Siegel, Schmalleger, & Worrall, 2011).
I have read much better article opposing gay marriage that had much more constitutional relevance. 2) How does this issue relate to the U.S. Constitution? (explain and cite) This issue relates to the Constitution because the Constitution does not clearly define marriage. As I understand it, marriage was left up to the states to define. There is a high demand from both supporters and the opposition to amend the Constitution to define marriage.
Constitutional Law Essay #1 Date September 23, 2012 How should the court decide PAM’s claim? Pam is challenging the Drug Act of being unconstitutional. First, State X is embarking on creating their own drug access program. State X needs to be aware of the federal constitutional limitations, the impact of the Medicaid program, and how the federal and state discount programs affect patient access to pharmaceutical care. The US Constitution imposes 2 principles of constraints on state pharmacy drug programs.