This is a key issue because an activist court causes controversy through its ability to make decisions based on their political ideologies rather than the constitution. A second issue with the composition of the Supreme Court is that judges have a lifelong tenure after they have been appointed. This is controversial for two reasons; one because judges may get so old that they might not be able to make good judgements, two because it means the influence of the president of who elected them can be felt decades after they have left office. An example of this would be Justice Scalia who was appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1986. The world has changed immeasurably since then as has global politics.
The Executive Branch is given the power to carry out the laws and one of its primary powers is the ability of the president to veto such proposed laws. The presidential veto is a vital component of the system of checks and balances established by the American Constitution. By giving the President a veto power, he is given the means with which to defend himself and his ofﬁce from being reduced to a pawn of the legislature, and through the ordinary course of human nature, i.e. wanting to preserve his own independence and importance, he can fairly safely be relied on to exercise this power. The Judicial Branch is given
Andrew Mondrus Professor Varon Civil Disobedience: The State and Law 10 December 2014 Beware of the United States Supreme Court Democracy has been defined as a “government by which the supreme power is vested in the people” by the U.S Department of State’s Bureau of International Information. Unfortunately, the judicial branch has acted oppressively. The design of United States judicial system is indeed flawed, allowing the courts to become undemocratic. Consequently, the courts have become an oppressive figure in American politics. The erroneous nature of the judicial branch has led the court to become authoritarian.
He uses several facts in history that are irrefutable to showcase the many extreme lengths at which certain Justices will go for the sole purpose of furthering their own goals. However, on rare occasion he focuses on the Constitutionally trustworthy Justices and their court decisions that have shaped our wonderful nation. Just as there are Justices that have twisted the Constitution to suit their deranged views, there is an equal amount that have shown common sense, and morality in their interpretations of the law. The problem noted in his book is that there are tools set in place for the removal of Supreme Court Justices that have obviously lost their way and warrant such actions however this has not been exercised to the extent that is needed. Article II, Section four of the Constitution provides for the removal of many things to include civil officers such as judges (Levin, 2005).
According to Black’s Law, judges that allow this philosophy to guide their decisions find themselves in violation of the constitution and often ignore its precedence. A perfect example of applying strict construction to hearing a case is one such as Marbury vs. Madison in 1801, after President Thomas Jefferson followed after President John Adams. The dispute started when President Adams appointed the “midnight judges” into the district court before he ended office, but did not deliver the commission papers to some of the selected judges –including William Marbury, appointed to the position as justice of the peace in the District of Columbia—that were essential to completing the engagement process. Adams assumed that the new Secretary of State, James Madison would deliver the commission papers necessary for the appointees to begin their duties as the new judges. But Jefferson who feared that the district court would be filled by a horde of Federalist supporters would loose main control of the federal judiciary.
They want to take part in the choice of their government because it took so long and so much effort for them to receive the equal rights and abilities to enjoy democracy (Speel, 2010). The American government acknowledges that there is a problem and there are steps that are being taken to avoid the long waits at the polling places but the reality stays grim. There are very many issues that must be presently addressed and
So Jefferson told James Madison not to deliver the appointment to Marbury. Marbury gets angry and does what most Americans do now by suing. He also asks the Supreme Court for a Writ of Mandamus, so he he can get the papers delivered. He stated that the Judicial Act of 1789 allowed for the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus. Marshall studied the case in a manner that helped to create the Judicial Review, which allows congress to study the constitutionality of a law.
She one time stated that President Obama is similar to former President, Bush because he does not know a lot about foreign policy. Foreign Policy is a huge deal and extremely important, so of course this would scare people into voting for Clinton. Depending on whether someone liked or disliked Bush as a president, it does not seem right to scare someone into seeing the way someone else does. Fear mongering is used in cases. It does work a lot of the time, but is it right?
This means that it is very important to choose a nominee who would be reflecting president’s political philosophy in the Court. However, if Senate decides that candidate is far too ‘extreme’ in their views or has been working with the president in the past, they might decide to strike the nominee down. For example Robert Bork’s critics regarded him as being both too conservative and too closely associated
The USA also has a complex legal system, having both national and state courts. Federalism in this sense thus leads to confusion, as what is legal in one state may be illegal in another, making it sometimes difficult for the central government and the people to distinguish between state laws and federal laws. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes writes “We are under a constitution, but the constitution is what the judges say it is.” The federal-state relationship is a continual source of conflict and controversy, and in these times the Supreme Court handles the issues. However, the federal constitution and the state constitution are open to individual interpretation. Federalism thus allows the Supreme Court to dictate the outcome, and without federalism, there may