The Supreme Court and Judicial Review

In: Other Topics

Submitted By dklindsey
Words 610
Pages 3
The Supreme Court and Judicial Review
Should the Supreme Court's power of judicial review be strictly limited by a constitutional amendment?
Yes, the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review should be strictly limited to the constitution; because their judicial power is in all cases, in law and equity, arising under the constitution. Meaning they are over stepping their initial jurisdiction and have been given the power to have judicial reviews, even though it’s unconstitutional.
The only power the Supreme Court is supposed to have is; all cases affecting ambassadors, or the public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party in the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction as stated in article III section 2 of the constitution. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the weakest of the three branches of government. The legislative, and executive branches are supposed to control the judiciary branch, even the states are supposed to have more say than the court. But they have been made more powerful and they are telling the legislative and executive branches what to do. There is no such system of checks and balances any more that protect the states and people when most government branches, are acting in cohorts with one another, eroding and destroying the rights and powers of the states and we the people. Even if the system was working right; who is watching and how will they stop the court from being unconstitutional? Every time the court holds judicial review it commits unconstitutional law, for which there is no recourse’s available. Because the nine justices are appointed, not elected in to office and can only be removed from office for bad behavior. Even though it has happened in the past; today’s day and age it less likely that any one of them will be removed, it’s more like a lifetime appointment (Michelsen, 2010).
I believe that if the…...

Similar Documents

Judicial Review

... in a criminal case. There is no onward appeal to the Supreme Court (Re Poh [1983] 1 WLR 2). R v Legal Aid Board Ex P Hughes (1992) 5 Admin L Rep 623. 18 Judicial Review: proposals for reform 70. The test for granting permission is not set out in the rules but arises from case law. In his judgment in the case of R v Inland Revenue Commissioners 31 Lord Diplock explained that the purpose of the test was to: prevent the time of the Court being wasted by busybodies with misguided or trivial complaints of administrative error, and to remove the uncertainty in which public officers and authorities might be left as to whether they could safely proceed with administrative action while proceedings for Judicial Review were pending although misguided. 71. The Government is keen that the procedure for permission continues to fulfil this purpose. The rationale for reform 72. The Government is concerned that the procedures for considering whether permission should be granted allows claimants too many opportunities to argue their case, particularly where their case is weak. This undermines the benefit of the requirement to obtain permission and creates greater uncertainty for public authorities. It also takes up court resources meaning that well-founded cases may not proceed quickly. 73. The claimant may have up to four opportunities to argue the case for permission. However, as set out in the case for change (see chapter 3) few cases stand any prospect of success. 74...

Words: 11446 - Pages: 46

The Supreme Court and Judicial Review

...The Supreme Court and Judicial Review Should the Supreme Court's power of judicial review be strictly limited by a constitutional amendment? Yes, the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review should be strictly limited to the constitution; because their judicial power is in all cases, in law and equity, arising under the constitution. Meaning they are over stepping their initial jurisdiction and have been given the power to have judicial reviews, even though it’s unconstitutional. The only power the Supreme Court is supposed to have is; all cases affecting ambassadors, or the public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party in the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction as stated in article III section 2 of the constitution. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the weakest of the three branches of government. The legislative, and executive branches are supposed to control the judiciary branch, even the states are supposed to have more say than the court. But they have been made more powerful and they are telling the legislative and executive branches what to do. There is no such system of checks and balances any more that protect the states and people when most government branches, are acting in cohorts with one another, eroding and destroying the rights and powers of the states and we the people. Even if the system was working right; who is watching and how will they stop the court from being unconstitutional? Every time the court holds...

Words: 610 - Pages: 3

Judicial Review

...Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court to decide whether or not a law is constitutional. The Supreme Court has the power to say that a law that Congress passed violates the Constitution and is therefore invalid. But when should the Court do this? When should it overturn a law that has been passed by Congress which, unlike the Supreme Court, has been elected by the people? This is where judicial philosophy comes in. There are generally said to be four judicial philosophies that come in two pairs. First, there are the philosophies of loose constructionism and strict constructionism. Strict constructionism holds that the Supreme Court should interpret the Constitution very strictly. If the Constitution does not say (for example) that there is a right to privacy, then there is no such right. Loose constructionism says that the Court should go more by the general meaning of the Constitution, not by its exact words. Therefore, a loose constructionist would say that the Constitution implies that we have a right to privacy and therefore we do have that right. Second, there is judicial activism and judicial restraint. Judicial activists believe that judges should strike down laws relatively often. If the Court thinks the law is unconstitutional, it should not hesitate to strike it down. Those who believe in judicial restraint think the Court should not strike laws down very often. Instead, the Court should generally let Congress do what it wants because......

Words: 260 - Pages: 2

Judicial Review

...Judicial Review: The power enables the judicial branch to act as a check on the other two branches of government. Jurisdiction: The power to speak the law. In Rem Jurisdiction: Court can exercise jurisdiction over property that is located within its boundaries. Bankruptcy Court: Only handles bankruptcy proceedings. Probate Courts: State courts that handle only matters relating to the transfer of a person’s assets and obligations after that person’s death. Federal Courts: Federal government is a government of limited power, the jurisdiction is limited. Federal Courts have subject-matter jurisdiction in two ways: 1.) Federal questions: Plaintiff’s cause of action is based, at least in part, on the U.S. Constitution, a treaty, or a federal law. 2.) Diversity of Citizenship: Federal district courts can also exercise original jurisdiction over cases: A.) Plaintiff and Defendant must be residents of different states B.) Money amount must exceed $75,000. Concurrent Jurisdiction: Both Federal and State courts have the power to hear a case, as in suits involving diversity of citizenship. Exclusive Jurisdiction: One or the other only could tried the case. Venue: Concerned with the most appropriate location for a trial. Standing to Sue: Sufficient stake in a matter to justify seeking relief through the court system. Justiciable Controversy: A controversy that is real and substantial. The State Court System: 1.) Local...

Words: 740 - Pages: 3

Pol 201 Week 4 Dq 1 the Supreme Court and Judicial Review

...POL 201 Week 4 DQ 1 The Supreme Court and Judicial Review http://homeworkmonster.com/downloads/pol-201-week-4-dq-1-supreme-court-judicial-review/ POL 201 Week 4 DQ 1 The Supreme Court and Judicial Review The Supreme Court and Judicial Review. In a recent lecture at Yale University, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer cautioned that while most citizens assume that judicial review is an enduring part of American government, judges should not take it for granted. He advises that if judges wish to preserve this undemocratic power they should follow a judicial philosophy that will “build confidence in the courts” (Breyer, 2011). Justice Breyer goes on to describe the kind of judicial philosophy he has in mind. However, some of his colleagues on the Supreme Court would reject his ideas about what philosophy should guide judges. The role of judicial philosophy (or ideology) in Supreme Court decision-making, especially in its exercise of judicial review to invalidate laws enacted by a democratically elected Congress or state legislature, has become a highly contentious issue both within the Court’s deliberations and in the larger political environment. As the nation becomes more divided over programs and policies that inevitably seem to come before the Supreme Court, politicians and ordinary citizens are caught up in rhetoric about judicial activism or judicial restraint, often with little understanding of what these terms really mean. Moreover, as public perceptions of the......

Words: 251 - Pages: 2

Power of Supreme Court

...The Power of the Supreme Court Cannot be Justified in a Democracy (45) The US Supreme Court has a number of powers. These include the power to declare acts of Congress, the executive or state legislatures unconstitutional through the power of judicial review. The supreme court justices are also given the power to interpret the constitution when making decisions, again, through their power of judicial review. It is arguable that it is essential for the supreme court to have such powers in order to allow the American democracy to flourish. However, there is much evidence to suggest that the supreme court holds too much power for an unelected body, thus hindering democracy. The ambiguity of the constitution means that there is much room for interpretation. Since interpreting the constitution is the role of the supreme court, the supreme court is often seen as a quasi legislative body. This is because through its interpretations, particularly those made by loose contructionists, the supreme court acts as an additional legislature. It's decisions can have the same effect as passing legislation. For example, the Grutter vs Bollinger decision (2008) involved the courts laying down a time frame for which affirmative action can be deemed necessary. This effectively acted as a piece of legislation even though it did not pass through Congress. This can be seen as being problematic and potentially damaging for a Democracy. Justices are unelected, they therefore lack legitimacy and...

Words: 913 - Pages: 4

The Supreme Court

... courts final decision, these decsion can be unanimous or individual they can be in agreement but for different reasons or they can agree on some issues but not others. For this reason the opinion of the court can be defined in four different ways whih are majority opinion, concurring opinion, dissenting opinion, and per curiam which means as a majority the justices reached a decision but without one justice in particular taking ownership. (Mosk, 1999) As mentioned before the Supreme Court represents the law of the land so the scope of their discretionary power goes far and affects everyone that comes in contact with the law or the legal system. The Supreme Court has the power to determine what cases it wants to review and can command action in regards to other official judicial bodies. The positive aspect of this is the Supreme courts ruling takes precedent over previous judicial rulings and helps to settle many inconsistencies within state laws that have an effect on us as citizens and our constitutional rights. The Supreme court has the right to determine how to apply constitutional meaning to practices and concepts that help to define our legal system as a whole, however this can also be the negative aspect of the Supreme Court as well due to the fact that their decisions are unable to be challenged by lower courts, which to some could be seen as a political tool questioning the motive or intent of the justices on some issues. In my opinion this rule is of fairness......

Words: 951 - Pages: 4

Supreme Court Interviews

... has improved because particularly the states are much better represented now than they were when he first came on the Court. During Stevens early years there were a number of states that let people argue cases maybe for political reasons, rather than because they were the best-qualified lawyers. So on the whole the average is better now. There’s no perfect system, one-way or the other. But citations have gotten longer and longer, haven’t they? I mean it used to be that a citation, in the 19th century it would be 12 characters. Now they’re 250 characters. To improve briefs, which Steven thinks, for the most part, they’re doing pretty well right now. The most important thing is to be accurate and intellectually honest in your arguments and state them clearly, but most of the briefs really are of high quality — the ones in the cases that we hear on the merits. Also to reply to a brief, address arguments that you may not have covered in your original brief and respond to arguments that you haven’t met the first time around. Justice Antonin Scalia Well, much, indeed most, of the communication that lawyers engage in is written. To write well is to communicate well. To write poorly is to communicate poorly. It also matters because to the extent that lawyers don’t write well, to the extent they abuse words, to the extent they use them incorrectly, they are making dull the tools of their trade, which is a terrible thing. There are some things that can’t be said as......

Words: 1407 - Pages: 6

California Supreme Court

...Court system of California is the largest systems about 12% of the U.S population are served. Major cases California courts starts in trail courts which are present in each and every 58 counties of California State. These courts hear criminal, civil, family, juvenile, probate, mental health and traffic cases. Before courts of appeal Supreme Court review most of the cases. Supreme Court is the highest Court in the California and reviews decisions of the court of appeal in order to solve the conflicts and settle the law questions. California Supreme Court has one Chief Justice and six Associate Justices. It has 7907 fillings and about eighty five written opinions. Each Justice is appointed by Governor. The decision of Supreme Court provides guidance for the lower courts which shows effects on the residents of California. Supreme Court has decisions to decide which decisions can be review but is definitely want to review all the cases where death penalty is imposed. Supreme Court can also review the decisions of state Bar of California regarding the suspension of judges for misconduct. All the decisions of Supreme Court are in the form of written and available for public. They are made accessible through websites and official reports. Supreme Court functions for the development of law which are applied by trial and appellate courts. Supreme Courts reviews cases which will enable it to settle legal questions and to see that the law is uniformly applied throughout the state.......

Words: 295 - Pages: 2

Supreme Court Justices

... the Supreme Court stepping in only when there is a gravely unconstitutional act committed. Chief Justice Marshall presented a question in the decision of Marbury v. Madison; was asking the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus constitutional? The Judiciary Act of 1789 stated that the Supreme Court had the power to issue writs of mandamus its under original jurisdiction, conflicting with article three of the constitution which states “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction” (Section 2, Clause 2). Marbury addressed the issue of what to do when these conflicts arise in the decision and concluded that it is the duty of the judicial branch to decide what the law is, and by the supremacy clause the constitution is always above the law of the United States. The precedent set in Marbury v. Madison allows the Supreme Court to deem federal law conflicts with the constitution, to say the law is invalid and stop enforcement. Since then judicial review has grown to any action by the sate or national government it finds unconstitutional. It would be hard to overstate the importance of Marbury v. Madison, as precedents set by judicial review have clearly shaped America by defining the constitution more specifically. The Court became the arbiter of the constitution, and had the final say what it meant. This made the court a true authority on all constitutional...

Words: 2189 - Pages: 9

Supreme Court Knowledge Check

...The chain of events leading up to the Supreme Court case U. S. v Clarke included summonses issued by the IRS to four people associated with Dynamo Holdings, L.P. for evidence and documents related to Dynamo’s tax liability for 2005-2007. Large interest expenses reported in those years were in question. Dynamo had agreed to two year-long extensions of the usual 3-year limitation period for assessing tax liability. When the four individuals failed to comply with the summonses issued in September and October 2010, the IRS pursued the issue in District Court in April 2011 to enforce the summons under United States Code Section 7602(a), which gives the Secretary the power to examine relevant or material information and to summon liable parties. Under Reisman v. Caplin, 375 U. S. 440, 449 (1964), the summons was challenged by respondents, attempting to question the responsible agents and claiming the IRS had questionable motives in issuing the summonses. The respondents held that the IRS issued the summonses to “punish Dynamo for refusing to a further extension of the applicable statute of limitations.” Additionally, the respondents claimed that the IRS decided to enforce the summonses following Dynamo filing suit in Tax Court in order to avoid the Tax Court’s limitations on discovery, thus gaining an unfair advantage. This request was deemed incorrect matter of law and was denied by the District Court because the respondents did not point to specifics that might raise...

Words: 814 - Pages: 4

Supreme Court Case Study

...Civil Rights and Liberties Supreme Court Case 2 Douglas Ganim Thursday, November 5, 2015 VOTE: 5-4 in favor of Sally Spyalot, Director of National Security Agency JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the court Shortly after September 11, 2001, at the request of the National Security Agency, several of the major phone companies were asked to provide phone records for all calls made within the United States, and all calls made to the United States from other countries. The data the NSA received, provided information on the phone number the call was made to and from, the call’s duration, the date of the call, and the time of day. No Financial data, nor content of the calls, were ever obtained by NSA. This action proceeded without a warrant for any of the information provided. In addition, there was no individual suspicion since this was considered “meta-data” or “bulk data collection” of phone records. The vast majority of the data was analyzed by computer programs and never looked at by NSA personnel. Before we delve into an analysis of the court’s decision in this case, it is prudent we first address an important point. Prior to the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, few American’s contemplated a threat to homeland security. Today, the fear of terrorism is ingrained in our daily thoughts. Following the events of 9/11, American’s sense of safety nearly vanished, and the direction, and scope of national security were forever changed. The National Security...

Words: 2770 - Pages: 12

Supreme Court Cases

...Karen Franklin Grantham University GP 210 04/14/2016 Supreme Court Cases The 9 members of the United States supreme court: Justice | Date of Birth | Appointed by | Sworn in | Vacant (Antonin Scalia) | 3/11/1936 Died 2/13/2016 Age: 79 yr 11 mo | Ronald Reagan | 9/26/1986 Served: 29 yr 4 mo | Anthony Kennedy | 7/23/1936 Age: 79 yr 8 mo | Ronald Reagan | 2/18/1988 Served: 28 yr 1 mo | Clarence Thomas | 6/23/1948 Age: 67 yr 9 mo | George H. W. Bush | 10/23/1991 Served: 24 yr 5 mo | Ruth Bader Ginsburg | 3/15/1933 Age: 83 yr 0 mo | Bill Clinton | 8/19/1993 Served: 22 yr 7 mo | Stephen Breyer | 8/15/1938 Age: 77 yr 7 mo | Bill Clinton | 8/3/1994 Served: 21 yr 8 mo | John G. Roberts | 1/27/1955 Age: 61 yr 2 mo | George W. Bush | 9/29/2005 Served: 10 yr 6 mo | Samuel A. Alito, Jr. | 4/1/1950 Age: 66 yr 0 mo | George W. Bush | 1/31/2006 Served: 10 yr 2 mo | Sonia Sotomayor | 6/25/1954 Age: 61 yr 9 mo | Barack Obama | 8/8/2009 Served: 6 yr 8 mo | Elena Kagan | 4/28/1960 Age: 55 yr 11 mo | Barack Obama | 8/7/2010 Served: 5 yr 8 mo | http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Hx/SupremeCourt.html A Texas resident wanted to terminate her pregnancy through abortion, but Texas law prohibited abortions unless they were happening to save the mother’s life. The right to privacy which is in the fourth amendment is the laws that was being challenged and in this case it was protected under the fourteenth...

Words: 489 - Pages: 2

Judicial Review

...Judicial Review The power of judicial review allows the judiciary to review the acts of other branches of government as well as the state. Judicial review is important because it admits the Judicial Branch to check the power of the Executive and Legislative Branches, making them to abide by the rules of the Constitution. The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Federal Judicial System as well as the Marbury V. Madison case, which formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States. The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the three levels of the federal court system. At the bottom of the system is the federal district court. The district court is a state of federal trial court. One could appeal their case to the circuit court if they were unhappy with the district courts verdict. The circuit court, or now known as the court of appeals, was first created to work as a trial court for important cases. After 1891, the circuit courts started to focus only on reviewing the findings of the lower courts. The last level of the federal court system is the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court is the highest federal court in the United States. It consists of nine justices and it ranks over all of the other courts in the nation. In 1803, The Marbury v. Madison case declared the power of judicial review. This was the first time the Supreme Court overturned federal legislation. In return, The Marbury v. Madison case greatly strengthened the power of the......

Words: 375 - Pages: 2

Supreme Court Case

...Supreme Court Case Jamie Wallace CJA/354 August 5, 2012 Graham Quisenberry The Supreme Court case I chose for my assignment is titled “Supreme Court mostly rejects Arizona immigration law; gov says ‘heart’ remains.” Immigration is a controversial area for society and the law in United States, even more so after the terrorist attacks in 2001. The state of Arizona in April 2010 implemented laws that would crack down on immigration violators to protect the citizens of Arizona and the citizens of the United States. The summary of what this article covers is the U.S. Supreme court struck down key portions of a law that was enacted by the state of Arizona in April 2010. According to the Cohen (2012) website Arizona sought to deter illegal immigration that allows a provision to check a person’s immigration status while still enforcing other laws. The ruling behind the Supreme Court’s decision is that the federal government has the power that can block any law and all of Arizona’s authority figures must comply with the federal law when conducting any immigration status checks or they may face challenges considered to be unconstitutional. What interested me the most about the article is the controversy that surrounds this subject. Racial profiling is a controversial subject that brings much debate with it. When one looks at the law and what law enforcement officers do as part of their duty, at times there is racial profiling that will take...

Words: 902 - Pages: 4