The President has the responsibility of nominating justices, whose confirmations are determined by the United States Senate. It is the final arbiter of the law and court essay is tasked with guaranteeing that the American people have equal justice under the law. These appointments are lifetime tenures. After oral arguments, a majority of the justices seem to agree that Roe should be overruled because it is court essay, regardless of how supporters of that decision will respond, court essay. Rehnquist intoned, "Once the Court starts looking to the currents of public opinion regarding a particular judgment, it enters a truly bottomless pit from which there is simply no extracting itself.
Site Information Navigation
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court considered the validity of Mississippi's week abortion ban. Yet, there was surprisingly little discussion about whether the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, as it was originally understood, permits court essay states to prohibit pre-viability abortions. Rather, the bulk of the two-hour proceeding focused on whether the Court should stand by Roe v. Court essaythe landmark precedent that conjured a constitutional right to abortion. Roe 's defenders argue court essay overruling the precedent would be unpopular, so the Court should maintain this obviously erroneous decision to avoid weakening the Court's public standing. But this position is paradoxical.
The Court's legitimacy depends on independent jurists who faithfully decide cases based upon written law. By contrast, judges who base their decisions on court essay opinion subvert the Court's legitimacy. Thankfully, court essay, the Roberts Court now seems poised to unravel Roe v. Wade 's precedential paradox. After oral arguments, a majority of the justices seem to agree that Roe should be overruled because it is wrong, regardless of how supporters of that decision will respond, court essay. The Court, in other words, appears set to decide the case based on the law—and the political chips will fall where they may, court essay. Inthe Supreme Court held in Roe that the Constitution guarantees a right to abortion during the first and second trimesters of pregnancy.
Two decades later, in Planned Parenthood v. Caseythe Court purported to reaffirm Roebut in reality rewrote the precedent. According to Caseystates could prohibit abortions after the point of fetal "viability"—a line that changes based on neonatal medicine—but could not impose an "undue burden" on abortions prior to viability. The controlling opinion was written jointly by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter. Much of the opinion in Casey focused on a legal doctrine known as stare decisiswhich is Latin for "stand by the things decided.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist accurately characterized this paradox. From the benchhe explained that the Court's opinion in Casey can be "be viewed as a surrender to those who have brought political pressure in favor" of Roe. Court essay intoned, "Once the Court starts looking to the currents of public opinion regarding a particular judgment, it enters a truly bottomless pit from which there is simply no extracting itself. In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia was "appalled" that the Court's decision was "strongly influenced by the substantial and continuing public opposition [ Roe ] has generated, court essay. On Wednesday, two current members of the Court channeled the logic of the justices they clerked for. Chief Justice John Roberts, who clerked court essay Rehnquist, court essay, recognized Roe 's precedential paradox.
He said that Casey seems to require the Court to consider whether a decision will be "popular. But in any event, the Court should not be in the business of assessing the political consequences of any potential ruling. Justice Amy Coney Barrettwho clerked for Scalia, court essay, raised this issue directly during the oral arguments. She recognized that Casey adopted a "different conception of stare decisis. For three decades, court essay, Casey has rested on this logical fallacy: First, judicial independence is central to the Court's legitimacy; second, the Court should avoid decisions that threaten the Court's legitimacy.
How can judicial independence be maintained if the justices are basing their decisions on the latest Gallup poll? Judges simply are not equipped to make these types of assessments of popular opinion. More likely than not, the justices court essay look inside at how important they view the precedent, rather than looking outward. This introspection is inconsistent with the notion of a written rule of law itself. Court essay Roberts Court is now poised to correct one of the largest jurisprudential blunders in Supreme Court history. A decision to repudiate Casey 's flawed conception of stare decisis would restore, not weaken, the Court's legitimacy.
Now, the Court can end its freefall into what Rehnquist called the "bottomless pit. Let court essay political chips fall where they may, court essay. Josh Blackman is a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston court essay the co-author of An Introduction to Constitutional Law: Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know. Opinion Roe v Wade Abortion Abortion Rights, court essay. Newsweek magazine delivered to your door Unlimited access to Newsweek. com Ad free Newsweek. Unlimited access to Newsweek.
work cited essay example
But this position is paradoxical. The Court's legitimacy depends on independent jurists who faithfully decide cases based upon written law. By contrast, judges who base their decisions on popular opinion subvert the Court's legitimacy. Thankfully, the Roberts Court now seems poised to unravel Roe v. Wade 's precedential paradox. After oral arguments, a majority of the justices seem to agree that Roe should be overruled because it is wrong, regardless of how supporters of that decision will respond. The Court, in other words, appears set to decide the case based on the law—and the political chips will fall where they may. In , the Supreme Court held in Roe that the Constitution guarantees a right to abortion during the first and second trimesters of pregnancy.
Two decades later, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey , the Court purported to reaffirm Roe , but in reality rewrote the precedent. According to Casey , states could prohibit abortions after the point of fetal "viability"—a line that changes based on neonatal medicine—but could not impose an "undue burden" on abortions prior to viability. The controlling opinion was written jointly by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter. Much of the opinion in Casey focused on a legal doctrine known as stare decisis , which is Latin for "stand by the things decided.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist accurately characterized this paradox. From the bench , he explained that the Court's opinion in Casey can be "be viewed as a surrender to those who have brought political pressure in favor" of Roe. Rehnquist intoned, "Once the Court starts looking to the currents of public opinion regarding a particular judgment, it enters a truly bottomless pit from which there is simply no extracting itself. In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia was "appalled" that the Court's decision was "strongly influenced by the substantial and continuing public opposition [ Roe ] has generated. On Wednesday, two current members of the Court channeled the logic of the justices they clerked for.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who clerked for Rehnquist, recognized Roe 's precedential paradox. He said that Casey seems to require the Court to consider whether a decision will be "popular. This paper will discuss various aspects of the Supreme Court, its purpose and functioning, and other characteristics. The purpose of the Supreme Court is not to create law, but rather to interpret law and whether or not the issues being considered are consistent with the United States Constitution. The words that are written above the entrance to the Court, EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW, describe the most significant responsibility of the Supreme Court: it is the highest court in the nation for any and all disputes arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States.
It is the final arbiter of the law and it is tasked with guaranteeing that the American people have equal justice under the law. It is essentially the guardian and interpreter of the Constitution The Court and Constitutional Interpretation, The Supreme Court is comprised of the Chief Justice and eight Associate Judges, a number that is determined by Congress. The President has the responsibility of nominating justices, whose confirmations are determined by the United States Senate. These appointments are lifetime tenures.
In addition, there are court officers who are instrumental in helping the Court perform its duties, including clerks, librarians, marshals, a curator, and a reporter of decisions A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court, The Supreme Court receives cases in one of two ways. The vast majority of cases taken on by the Supreme Court are received on appeal from lower federal courts or state supreme courts What Is the US Supreme Court? If such a writ is not issued, the lower court decision will stand.
No comments:
Post a Comment