The information contained in Becoming Justice Blackmun demonstrates the forcible, yet changeable, as a matter of law, nature of precedent with regards to the penetration of the lives of the United States citizenry. Most prominently cited, the Roe v. Wade decision, altered the age-old belief of the criminalization of abortion. Blackmun wrote in his notes, “‘Here we go in the abortion field” (Greenhouse, 72), prior to the hearings of three cases involving abortion; thus, Blackmun, as well as the other Justices, understood the importance of the abortion cases with regards to the development of rights for women and their physicians. By the 1972, one year before the ruling in Roe v. Wade, a Gallup poll revealed that a significant number of Americans
…show more content…
Thus, the direction the court had taken in previous actions – precedent – resulted in the decision to legalize abortions. Public opinion bore no influence on the Justices because the Constitution permitted a woman’s right to privacy in relation to abortion without explicit mention of it. During the drafting of the opinion, Blackmun further noted: “‘It is not for us of the judiciary, especially at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, to speculate or to specify when life beings’” (Greenhouse, 89). The Supreme Court inevitably overruled historical approval of the criminalization of abortion; this advances the idea that the judiciary remains immovable to the sways of the public. Though stare decisis states the continuance of precedent, the development of man’s knowledge influences perceptions of right and wrong. Only the same court may overturn its own ruling but does so through the confidence of improved knowledge. Therefore, Justice Blackmun’s insights into the Roe v. Wade decision prove not only the negated effect of the public on judiciary action, but places emphasis on the knowledge of man as a means for maintaining or overruling …show more content…
v. Cinque offers further evidence of the unbiased demeanor of the United States judiciary. Judge Acree, after the interview, suggested specific cases in a book entitled Great American Trials. The most pertinent case to the subject of judges remained impartial to political matters lies with U.S. v. Cinque – a case involving the slaves aboard a ship called the Amistad. The slaves rebelled against their Spanish owners, taking over the ship, and directing their course toward Sierra Leone. However, due to manipulation, the ship meandered back and forth until the U.S. Navy finally seized the ship and brought it into a harbor in Connecticut. There, the slaves were tried and formally expunged of their murder and piracy charges by a U.S. District Court. The case went to the Supreme Court and the same decision was reached despite five of the nine Justices being southerners and slave owners. This example clearly depicts the judiciary acting on behalf of the United States Constitution; though the southern Justices certainly were pressured by existing social conditions – southern heritage and their own beliefs on slavery – unbiased rationale prevailed. Thus, judicial members, no matter their jurisdictional boundaries, exemplify an unbiased demeanor that corresponds to the duties with which they are
Thus, the direction the court had taken in previous actions – precedent – resulted in the decision to legalize abortions. Public opinion bore no influence on the Justices because the Constitution permitted a woman’s right to privacy in relation to abortion without explicit mention of it. During the drafting of the opinion, Blackmun further noted: “‘It is not for us of the judiciary, especially at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, to speculate or to specify when life beings’” (Greenhouse, 89). The Supreme Court inevitably overruled historical approval of the criminalization of abortion; this advances the idea that the judiciary remains immovable to the sways of the public. Though stare decisis states the continuance of precedent, the development of man’s knowledge influences perceptions of right and wrong. Only the same court may overturn its own ruling but does so through the confidence of improved knowledge. Therefore, Justice Blackmun’s insights into the Roe v. Wade decision prove not only the negated effect of the public on judiciary action, but places emphasis on the knowledge of man as a means for maintaining or overruling …show more content…
v. Cinque offers further evidence of the unbiased demeanor of the United States judiciary. Judge Acree, after the interview, suggested specific cases in a book entitled Great American Trials. The most pertinent case to the subject of judges remained impartial to political matters lies with U.S. v. Cinque – a case involving the slaves aboard a ship called the Amistad. The slaves rebelled against their Spanish owners, taking over the ship, and directing their course toward Sierra Leone. However, due to manipulation, the ship meandered back and forth until the U.S. Navy finally seized the ship and brought it into a harbor in Connecticut. There, the slaves were tried and formally expunged of their murder and piracy charges by a U.S. District Court. The case went to the Supreme Court and the same decision was reached despite five of the nine Justices being southerners and slave owners. This example clearly depicts the judiciary acting on behalf of the United States Constitution; though the southern Justices certainly were pressured by existing social conditions – southern heritage and their own beliefs on slavery – unbiased rationale prevailed. Thus, judicial members, no matter their jurisdictional boundaries, exemplify an unbiased demeanor that corresponds to the duties with which they are