Essay On Supreme Court

Decent Essays
The supreme court is one of the main pillars of government, whose original job was to rule over cases from original jurisdiction to appellate. However the court took on a very important power early on in it’s life, this power was the power to declare laws unconstitutional or judicial review. This power allows the court to govern to a limited extent their word essentially becoming law. This may be seen as some as a bad thing, however in all reality it may be a necessity. The supreme court acts similar to a watchdog in many cases. The power of judicial review combined with the fact that it 's the highest court means that its decision is essentially law. However it does change. The court is also unique in that it isn’t elected by the people. This means that the court may not always fall in opinion with the people. This is where the primary problem comes from. One side says that the life terms allows for impartial ruling however problems do arise when you consider generational shifts. Problems also arise with …show more content…
This in theory could cause problems, however this isn’t really the case the average term of a supreme court justice is only about 16 years(supreme court gov site). Granted the longest term was almost 37 however the shortest was a temporary chief justice who served a little over 5 months(supreme court). The more interesting part is that there are no actual requirements in the constitution to serve on the court(history.com). The court’s members where intended to be “men of wisdom”(class) not bound to the president or any political party. They where to act in the best interest of the nation. The nation not people mind you, infact the court 's opinion on issues change as it does a prime example being the “separate but equal” decision. It makes sense that the court changes with time. The question of this paper is whether or not they should be left to voters or the president to decide the

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Parliamentary sovereignty is a doctrine that gives parliament the supreme law making power within the UK, which is essential to other branches of the government to operate efficiently. The notion that the rule of law does eclipse parliamentary sovereignty, largely lacks the evidence to be upheld, and accepted by all, as much more commonly the parliamentary sovereignty is eclipsed by the other, more practical factors some of them being politics, the electorate, the majority based system, and the reasonability of the parliament itself. However such notion does have a right to exist with the little evidence that is present to suggest that, that the doctrine of rule of law, which stands to protect not only its core legal principles, but further…

    • 1865 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Thus, there is something uneasy about upholding moral principles society cannot agree upon, especially when this process has no other virtues. Judges deferring to Parliamentary decisions However, there is great tension as soon as we change our beliefs on the nature of law and hence, the legal reasoning implemented regarding the extent to which judges shape the law. For example, with positivism – under either Hart or Kelsen – law is separate from morality. Under Hart’s theory, there is some room for judges to apply discretion, as rules have a core of easy meaning and application, and a penumbra of uncertainty. However, for the most part, judges are to apply the clear legal rules which are posited.…

    • 1728 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Both Supreme Court justice argue in valid points. The world is changing and so does technology and the views of citizens. While making decision justice(s) must think about when was constitution written and how the world have change since then, if not it would be like watching black and white television today. So I support the Justice Breyer approach and court must be guided by the views of the citizens. Just a caution note I’m not trying to say we must ignore the constitution and do what we like but we must adopt with the changes as necessary.…

    • 403 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Judicial Precedent Essay

    • 1085 Words
    • 4 Pages

    The contrast of these two types of decisions can lead to some desecration of how judicial law making is brought about because due to the doctrine, courts must take the former approach. Rule based decisions are supported by Sir William Blackstone who observed the declaratory theory of precedent and believed that, ‘the role of a judge is to discover and declare the law but not make it.’ This view however is criticised and considered a two dimensional view due to the court hierarchy system. When cases escalate up the hierarchy, it allows for more flexibility in common law and as a result, allows higher ranked judges to overrule or reverse decisions depending on the…

    • 1085 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The Supreme Court System

    • 726 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Through judicial activism, courts can help to politicize issues that are often forgotten. Additionally, Courts can advocate for minority groups in society. The involvement of judiciaries in politics ensures that the democratic value of protecting every citizen’s rights and liberties is upheld. However, many politicians argue that judicial activism is anti-democratic because it is an act against the majority will. They also believe that unelected judges should not strike down on laws/policies that were created by an elected legislature.…

    • 726 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    While it’s not the standard in lower courts, the United States Supreme Court is forced to make political and judicial decisions, and must be viewed as a political and judicial institution. A judicial decision is based on the question was a law broken. However, because the Supreme Court is the highest court of the land, they also must make political decisions some of…

    • 1462 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Sentencing or judicial decision of the case. Another reasons why I don’t really agree with this system because maybe previous decisions by judges don’t necessarily embody the law. This legal system isn’t really a good system because the judges look at the cases and see that they are similar to a previous one and just gives the same verdict as the last one but you are able to provide other facts and show other wise and they don’t look at it just because you had a similar case like another one. It’s like you’re not really getting the right sentencing or judicial decision to your case that you brought. People may that it’s a good system because it helps judges save time and energy but are they treating everyone fairly to the Constitution.…

    • 728 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    National security and the protection of a state’s citizens is a primary duty for a government. The protection of human rights is also a great responsibility and central to having a modern democracy. A government though must sometimes restrict the human rights of some of its citizens in order to protect the state and its people. The judiciary has a role in deciding when to intervene in the restriction of the human rights of the citizenry when it feels the government has gone too far. In this essay I would argue that the judiciary should not use defence on matters of national security restricting the citizenry’s human rights and should fulfil its role as an independent check on the government in charge of safeguarding human rights.…

    • 1936 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Similarly, Article VI would cause treaties to trump national law, giving them the same status of power as the Constitution (U.S constitution). Ian Murray, vice president at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, argues the difference between the U.S. and European countries is that, in most countries, treaties are ratified by a vote of Parliament or by an executive decision. They then supposedly have the force of law, but few countries have the means of citizen enforcement of such law, which is why they can be safely ignored when convenient (Murray). Other nations don 't play by the rules of the game, whereas the U.S. is forced to. Ratifying treaties has less to do with the stage of democracy a state is in and more to do with what the State can gain from it.…

    • 959 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Dahl shows clearly that the ruling regime is the primary contributor to the decision-making process. He advocates for an institutional method to prevent the interference of the counter majoritarian perspective. The Supreme Court must express sincere preferences when making a verdict in this case because it has the power to bring chaos in the country. However, it is clear from the studies and images provided in this paper that the judges in the Supreme Tribunal use the ruling regime theory. They adjust their outcomes based on the responses of the government.…

    • 1148 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays