Friday, May 3, 2013
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I completely agree with you regarding what you said about judicial review. I definitely think that the courts should review all of the laws as frequently as possible. I also agree with you about the living constitution, I feel that our government needs to interpret the laws as they go along, within reason of course, to better have a chance to be fair.
ReplyDeleteI am very thankful that me, as a woman, had a judge in the U.S. Supreme Court Justices that fought for us to have rights equal to a man. I know a lot of people still think that we should be beneath a man, but so glad someone fought for a change.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your answer on the living Constitution and strict construction question. I think there needs to be a very fine balance of both used. Our basic Constitutional rights need to be protected at all costs ans looked at under strict construction, the rights pertaining to our freedom of speech, freedom of press, right to vote, equality, etc. I think these never need to be taken form but added to as our society, population and technology change.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that judicial review should be used often, on the basis that the laws that are passed should all be scrutinized by the Court and that any law that hasn't been should be quickly reviewed. It wouldn't make sense to have that power and not utilize it for the betterment of the country.
ReplyDeleteI also think they are doing a good job with judicial review. If something is not broke why try to fix it? I’m so glad that it has helped strike down segregated schools. Why shouldn’t we be able to learn and eat together? I think that judicial review has helped this country go so far just imagine how it’s going to be twenty or thirty years down the road.
ReplyDeleteI like what you said about Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It is good to have a feminist on the Supreme Court, especially since she doesn't go crazy with it. She truly works for good causes in regards to women's rights. I agree that the judicial review should be used regularly. I think that at times, the Court tends to delay a little too much in doing so. There are hotly debated topics that the Court needs to decide on and set more or less in stone. The Constitution needs to be upheld in regards to the civil rights of individuals and disallow/strike down any attempts to regulate things like homosexuality, birth control(for adults), or a woman's body.
ReplyDelete