Scalia is currently seen as the most conservative on the court. The Presidential nomination can be seen as politically controversial mainly due to the fact that the supreme court is supposed to be ‘the adjudicator’ rather than a political body, however justices are mainly chosen on political beliefs, not judicial qualifications. The Senate judiciary committee then holds hearings where it will question the nominee and hold a non-binding vote on whether to recommend the nominee to the Senate. The SJC was created in the 1980’s to question candidates and to discover their judicial beliefs and philosophies. However, Clarence Thomas, who went through the Senate hearings in October 1991 described them as a ‘high-tech lynching’.
Are judges politicians in disguise? When reviewing the functions of the judges, and how and why decisions are made, there are many factors which should come into consideration. The judicial branch should interpret the law and constitution, and to make neutral and impartial decisions. Judges, in theory, should be fair, unbiased, neutral, impartial and not based or linked to any political party or movement. However, it has been argued in the past that judges are too alike to politicians, as decisions made by the Supreme Court judges have, and will not be mechanical, but in a lot of cases too biased and political.
My partner and I strongly urge you to negate the resolution due to the following contentions: Contention #1: The Electoral College can enhance the ideologies of the Democratic and Republican parties. The Electoral College’s two party system encourages political stability. Because third party presidential candidates cannot easily win the election, the Democratic and Republican parties will assimilate and embrace the views of the third party. Due to this compromise of ideologies, the national population’s support will increase, providing more accuracy and political stability in the selection of presidents. According to the Missouri Election Board in Jackson County, “..We end up with two large, pragmatic political parties which tend to the center of public opinion rather than dozens of smaller political parties catering to divergent and sometimes extremist views.” In the direct popular vote, many presidents representing minor, regional parties will run, causing problems such as the disruption from an electoral majority.
Therefore there is not justifiable reason to extend that right to gay couples and in so doing change the very definition of marriage. On the other hand, more liberal citizens, backed by the President as well as many democrats, believe that marriage is right that should be extended to all, no matter of their sexual orientation, and that procreation is not the only reason for marriage, but instead it is the joining of two people that love each other. This controversial issue is being fought in numerous states; however California is undoubtedly the epicentre. Proposition 8 was a referendum passed by the people that banned same-sex marriage. As soon as it was passed into law a multitude of appeals were lodged against it claiming it was unconstitutional, although to begin with proposition 8 was upheld by the courts as constitutional, for example Strauss v. Horton, eventually the Californian 9th circuit Court of appeals ruled it unconstitutional.
Third parties are willing to touch subjects that pose threats to the main parties, subjects that are either too controversial such as abortion or too hard for either major party to come to a consensus such as handling the national debt. If either the Democrats or the Republicans stray too far from their middle ground they will lose votes , yes the Democrats have taken more liberal stands and the latter more conservative but both make sure to stay in the middle or as close to the middle to seem appealing to a larger number of citizens. (Citrin) Having a two party system places restrictions on viewpoints because it has to be made more general to accommodate the public. So an argument is made that third party will provide a purer democracy seeing as the current system makes some Americans feel marginalized. But what is this feeling that marginalizes Americans?
Ethos – Appeals to Authority and Credibility By Megan McIntyre and Jessica McKee Power is the most persuasive rhetoric. – Friedrich Schiller I’ve always wondered why candidates have to “approve this message”; I mean, if President Obama is on camera talking about himself, can’t I assume he approves the message ? Why does he have to state that he approves at the end? There’s certainly a law that governs what must be said at the end of a political advertisement, or else President Obama wouldn’t say exactly the same thing as every other politician at the end of an ad, but there’s also an element of persuasion at work here. By appearing on camera saying that he approves the content, the President is giving the ad credibility.
Thoreau believes in a government that puts the needs of the people ahead of the needs of the unjust few. His belief can be misinterpreted as a cry to abolish the government but he makes it clear by stating, “But to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government” (Thoreau 830). This sentence is the most important statement made by Thoreau because it is the starting point of what he wants in an American Government. He does not ask for a perfect government but a fair and free government. He goes on to say that some injustice was far too great to overlook, such as slavery.
This is wrong; states usually have a preference to a certain party and your vote could sway that preference and alter the distribution of states to candidates (State Political). As American Citizens we have to remember that voting is the only say that we have in government. We can influence the way tax money is spent to the healthcare that we receive. By not voting, each citizen is stating that they do not wish to influence what happens around them and to let things carry out “naturally”. Another issue is the age group of voters.
Many of the states were concerned about the government having too much power, and by allowing the citizens more power than just what was stated in the Bill of Rights, it ensures that the government will remain in check. The tenth amendment took power away from the federal government and gave more power to the states. This is what makes the American constitution so unique because it restricts the main government, unlike how it was in Britain. This was the most important addition to many representatives, as they would not sign the constitution because they feared the government would overpower the states, and it would be a repeat of everything they were trying to free themselves from. Luckily, the tenth amendment has made sure that will never
On the other hand, the liberals, or Judicial Activists, believe that the founding fathers recognized that standards of their time wouldn’t apply to the future, so therefore left the constitution broadly based and available for contemporary interpretation. In my opinion, as in many others, Judicial Activism is just an excuse for justices to rule based on personal opinion. The judicial branch of the government needs to show judicial restraint because of the variety of the cases they receive. They need to make sure that the rulings they enact are rulings that follow the constitution and not their own personal beliefs as they have been doing for some time now. In my opinion, the most important example of judicial restraint being in need in American history occurred on May 20, 1940.