Blogs I commented on:

Gabrielle Miller, Jessica Armes, and Albert Munoz

Chapter 14

1. Read online bio's of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices.  What do you find interesting about their backgrounds?  Pick one of the Justices, read about cases this Justice has written (majority or dissent) and explain whether you agree or disagree with his/her judicial philosophy.

I find it interesting that all U.S. Supreme Court Justices were all appointed to the United States Court of Appeals. Also most all of the Supreme Court Justices either went to Harvard Law School or Yale. They all seemed to graduate at the top of their class as well. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court since 1993. She focuses on women's rights and the feminist criticism of law. I agree with her judicial philosophy because she is for women's rights. She worked on various feminist causes. She also helped write the ACLU brief in Reed v. Reed of 1971, where the Supreme Court struck down an Idaho law that preferred men over women as executors of estates. Another case that promoted gender equity was Weinberger v. Wiesenfed of 1975, in which she represented a male plaintiff to demonstrate a particular law's disparate impact. After a man's wife died, Mr. Wiesenfeld received Social Security survivor benefits lower than those a woman would have received. The Court ruled that "[b]y providing dissimilar treatment for mean and women who are... similarly situated, the challenged section violates the [Due Process] Clause." Ginsburg was very persistent with her cases and made a lot of great efforts for women.

2. Is Judicial Review a power that should be exercised regularly or sparingly?  Why?

Judicial Review is the authority of courts to declare laws passed by Congress and acts of the executive branch to be unconstitutional. I feel that the courts are doing a good job with judicial review, therefore it should be used as it is, regularly. Judicial review has helped to strike down segregated schools in Brown v. Board of Education, as well as the anti-abortion laws of forty-seven states in Roe v. Wade, and to rule on the Michigan affirmative action cases. The Supreme Court also granted itself the power in the case of Marbury v. Madison. It seems that Judicial Review helps the nation, so that Congress does not make laws that are unconstitutional.

3. Is it the job of the High Court to apply the Constitution in light of the intent of the framers of the Constitution (strict construction) or should they interpret the Constitution in light of changes in society/technology (living Constitution)?  Why?

This is a very hard question to answer. I have done a little bit of research and some say that the Constitution is a living Constitution, because there has been many amendments made to it already. Different situation call for different answers, so sometimes it is better to use strict construction and other times it is better to use the living Constitution. I do feel though that times have changed since the framers were around, so the living Constitution may be better, because it would reflect a time of changes in society and technology.