Judicial Review
I believe having a Supreme Court is valuable for any democracy to maintain fairness between governmental power and the rights of citizens. However, with a court that wields such authority, the justices serving these courts must be appointed in a manner that represents a balance in political ideology. Moreover, if multiple appointments are made to the Supreme Court by a president and congress of one political persuasion, the court’s rulings can overwhelmingly favor a particular political party’s ideology. Balanced judicial appointments create balanced rulings in most cases. This neutrality can be disrupted by political influence as evidenced in recent rulings. Whether you are for or against it, the Affordable Care Act was considered dead on arrival leading up to the Supreme Court ruling. Of the nine justices, five were considered to vote against the Affordable Care Act, thus leading to its demise. One of the justices within the majority would have to break rank and join the other side of the court for this act to be implemented. Surprisingly, …show more content…
Many rulings handed down by the Supreme Court, have provided this protection. Gideon v. Wainwright was one such case. Clarence Gideon was a convicted felon who had represented himself due to the court denying him the representation of a free lawyer. The Supreme Court heard the case and overturned his felony conviction based on Gideon’s Constitutional rights to due process, noted in the Fourteenth Amendment. Another important case involving the due process of the Fourteenth Amendment is Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda had confessed to authorities without prior knowledge of his ability to have an attorney present during questioning and was later convicted. The Supreme Court held that criminal suspects must be given the right to remain silent prior to questioning. Therefore, the court overturned Miranda’s
I believe having a Supreme Court is valuable for any democracy to maintain fairness between governmental power and the rights of citizens. However, with a court that wields such authority, the justices serving these courts must be appointed in a manner that represents a balance in political ideology. Moreover, if multiple appointments are made to the Supreme Court by a president and congress of one political persuasion, the court’s rulings can overwhelmingly favor a particular political party’s ideology. Balanced judicial appointments create balanced rulings in most cases. This neutrality can be disrupted by political influence as evidenced in recent rulings. Whether you are for or against it, the Affordable Care Act was considered dead on arrival leading up to the Supreme Court ruling. Of the nine justices, five were considered to vote against the Affordable Care Act, thus leading to its demise. One of the justices within the majority would have to break rank and join the other side of the court for this act to be implemented. Surprisingly, …show more content…
Many rulings handed down by the Supreme Court, have provided this protection. Gideon v. Wainwright was one such case. Clarence Gideon was a convicted felon who had represented himself due to the court denying him the representation of a free lawyer. The Supreme Court heard the case and overturned his felony conviction based on Gideon’s Constitutional rights to due process, noted in the Fourteenth Amendment. Another important case involving the due process of the Fourteenth Amendment is Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda had confessed to authorities without prior knowledge of his ability to have an attorney present during questioning and was later convicted. The Supreme Court held that criminal suspects must be given the right to remain silent prior to questioning. Therefore, the court overturned Miranda’s