Supreme Court Essays


Abortion Pros and Cons Essay

Abstract Abortion refers to the termination of the pregnancy and most members of society tend to feel strongly and often myopically about their opinions of abortion. This paper will examine the complex and multi-faceted history that the United States has had with abortion as well as the pros and cons of this procedure. This essay will take a long look at the reasons that motivate those who support abortion and those who do not. It is hoped that this deep analysis will not only strengthen one’s ability to think critically, but allow compassion and common understanding to thrive in society. Continue Reading...

Miranda vs. Arizona Case Brief Essay

Case Facts: Ernesto Miranda was arrested and locked up in a Phoenix police station on March 13, 1963 where he was identified by a complaining witness (Samaha, 2012).  Law enforcement officers took him to an Investigation Room where he was questioned before the two officers came out with a written confession that he signed.  During the questioning, Miranda was not notified that he had a right to an attorney and was notified of the need for voluntary confession after making his oral confession.  The written confession was then admitted into evidence at his trial before a jury despite objections from Continue Reading...

Court Process, Judicial Process, and Constitutional Issues

in law. Week 5: Discussion In the American judicial system, the supreme court reviews very few cases most of whom are appeals from lower courts. It should not be mandatory for the supreme court to review more cases despite having appellate jurisdiction. The best legal standard to determine whether the supreme court should review a case includes the national significance of the case, its precedential value, and the need to create harmony between conflicting decisions. Week 6: Discussion 1 The U.S. supreme court is an important element of the nation's criminal justice system given its original and appellate jurisdiction. Through its… Continue Reading...

Criminal Process from Arraignment to Pre Trial

also done at this stage (Tanner et al., 2007; American Bar Association, 2007). U.S. supreme court's Philosophy on the Criminal Process The philosophy of the U.S. supreme court on the rights of the defendant dates back to the time of Earl Warren as the Chief Justice. At the time, the supreme court of the United States was referred to as the Warren Court, which is a common practice in various judicial systems to refer to the country's judicial system with the name of the chief justice. At the time, from 1953 to 1969 -- the time Warren served as the… Continue Reading...

Impact Of Brown Vs Board Of Education

will involve work from all corners of the country. Analysis Brown vs. Board of Education is the supreme court of the United States decision that truly called "separate but equal" what it truly is and that is government-sanctioned racism. Indeed, separate schools for blacks and whites were encouraged and active even after the abolition of slavery and throughout the Jim Crow days. This continued on and until the supreme court had their say in the Brown decision. However, there was not an immediate "night and day" difference when that decision came down. First, the order came from the Brown case but… Continue Reading...

Liberal and Conservative Beliefs Of Justices

(American Bar Association, 2015). ASHFORD 4: - WEEK 3 - DISCUSSION 1 supreme court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was born in 1933 in Brooklyn to Jewish parents. She attended Cornell, Columbia Law and was a professor at Rutgers and Columbia. She worked in the Women's Rights Movement with the ACLU and was that organization's General Counsel for much of the 1970s as well as on the organization's Board of Directors. She was appointed judge of U.S. Court of Appeals in DC in 1980. Clinton nominated her to the supreme court which she joined in 1993 at 60 years of age. She… Continue Reading...

Katz Vs United States

would effectively achieve this. Through clever wording, it has been found plausible by the U.S. supreme court to contend that language expressly aiming at search and confiscation of articles that may be both searched and confiscated is, perhaps, for the protection of citizens' privacy, applicable to eavesdropped proof from conversations between people. Holdings/Rationale Justice Potter Stewart, when penning the view of the majority, rejected the claim presented by both parties in the case regarding whether or not phone booths constitute "constitutionally safeguarded" areas. He drew a forceful distinction when claiming Amendment IV only protects people and not places. If… Continue Reading...

Court Case Review in Re Winship

reasonable doubt," ("In Re Winship"). Winship appealed, and the appeal was rejected and later sent to the supreme court, which granted certiorari and deemed "preponderance of evidence" methods unconstitutional based primarily on the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause. The outcome of the case strengthens the burden of proof requirements for all criminal cases, juvenile or not. However, juvenile defendants are particularly influenced by this decision. The decision particularly applies to acts that would be considered crimes if the defendant were an adult. Although juveniles are the principle recipients of the outcome, In Re Winship generally strengthens the concept of… Continue Reading...

Police Vehicle Pursuits

officers' liability exposure, liability standards, or general applicability to police pursuits. Court Case In the Jones v. Philadelphia case, the supreme court of Pennsylvania State rescinded settled standard, ruling that the police may be held just as liable as the bolting driver. A police pursuit ended in a police car crashing into the complainant's automobile, injuring him and claiming his wife's life. Deriving from the Dickens v. Horner case, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court (trial court) ruled that the case's defendants weren't liable for the escaping driver's acts. Upon appeal, the complainant claimed their pursuers were careless in their pursuit, the police… Continue Reading...

Self Incrimination and Right to Counsel Approach

U.S. constitution, it was tied to a complicated and controversial history. The supreme court has applied three tenets in the constitution to evolve rules that govern police interrogation and the confession process. These three include the Sixth Amendment on the Right to Counsel, the Fourteenth Amendment clause on due process and the Fifth Amendment on Self-incrimination clauses. Each of these provisions has led the police to handle interrogation and confessions in varying ways (Samaha, 2012). Although it is argued that the self-incrimination concept is rooted in Talmudic law and the thinking of the early Christians, the current state was… Continue Reading...

How Supreme Court Justices Are Appointed

United States is entrusted with the responsibility of selecting the supreme court Justices: "The President...shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme court, and all other Officers of the United States." Because unlike other public servants, supreme court Justices serve for life, their appointments need to be considered carefully. The general public cannot be trusted to make decisions this important with proper care and consideration. The most recent election of Donald Trump further proves this to be the case. Even though presidential… Continue Reading...

Hobby Lobby and First Amendment

was found guilty of saying outrageous comments in a funeral. However, the supreme court of United States in an 8-1 decision argued that the church was constitutionally protected to say whatever they wanted as far as they did not affect the ceremony. It was established that they had avoided the ceremony and had not been involved directly in stopping the ceremony (Zipursky, 473). The supreme court of the United States favored Hobby Lobby in its ruling asserting that under the First Amendment, religious beliefs were protected and it was the right of the business owner to run his or… Continue Reading...

Marbury V Madison Case

affirmative, could this sort of writ be issued by the US supreme court? With respect to the very first issue raised, the Chief Justice held that the petitioner had been appointed appropriately according to legally-set down procedures, thus being entitled to this writ. Furthermore, owing to the petitioner's legal entitlement to the commission, he should be offered a remedy by the law. Marshall further stated that the courts were especially duty-bound to safeguard citizens' rights -- even if it was against the nation's president himself. At that time, his ill-disguised reprimanding of President Thomas Jefferson regarding the rule of… Continue Reading...

California Vs Greenwood

to look for evidence in this fashion. The California versus Greenwood case made by the supreme court was frequently used as a guide on searches of trash that did not require a warrant. The supreme court in North Carolina in State versus Hauser also held in 1976 that searching the garbage of a defendant did not violate the fourth Amendment although the garbage was collected from the defendant's backyard (Uviller). Since the trash was collected during normal time for garbage collection, his expectation of privacy could not be reasonably sustained. The court pointed out that if the defendant expected… Continue Reading...

Mapp Vs Ohio Case

detention by Cleveland’s Police Department, is counted among the most popular twentieth-century supreme court-handled cases. Amendment IV forbids unauthorized searches and seizures in American citizens’ homes, in addition to delineating citizens’ privacy rights. The chief issue in this case dealt with whether or not proof gathered in the course of a search operation that breached the constitutional Amendment IV could be admitted in state courts. Attorney Kearns lodged an appeal notice and forwarded the case to Ohio’s supreme court, to reconsider the ruling made by the Court of Appeals (Mapp v. Ohio - supreme court of Ohio (Case No.… Continue Reading...

Supreme Court Second Amendment Case

Columbia Circuit on the premise that the Second Amendment protects individual's right to bear arms. The U.S. supreme court later granted certiorari (U.S. supreme court, 2007). Issue: The issue in this case is whether the provisions of the District of Columbia Code violate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In essence, the question is this case is, "Do the provisions of District of Columbia Code violate the Second Amendment through restricting handguns licensure and requiring trigger-locks for firearms kept in the home? Rule: The rule of law here is that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives… Continue Reading...

Supreme Court

Justice Antonin Scalia's philosophy and contributions to the US supreme court, and the effect of his demise on the Court, particularly on Amendments IV, V, VI and VIII. Philosophy and Impact of the Death of Scalia Owing to Justice Scalia's disruptive nature, a number of impolite social media posts, op-eds and tweets are expected from parties who were usually not in agreement with his philosophy. Despite the presence of other "conservative" Justices, Antonin Scalia's aggressive and frequently insulting views either infuriated the opposition or made individuals who agreed with him feel immensely superior and triumphant.… Continue Reading...

Norway, England, Wales, and the United States

example, both Norway and the United States have a supreme court. This is the highest tier in its court system. Here the justices decide what laws will be upheld by the country. However, unlike the United States, Norway has conciliation boards or an Interlocutory Appeals Committee that allows for examination of the information before it reaches the court. Furthermore, decisions made in the Norwegian supreme court are upheld with no chance for appeal or complaint. The only exception is the Court for Human Rights (Sriramesh & Vercic, 2009). The United States supreme court rulings can be overturned by a… Continue Reading...

Film Culture and Its Impact on Civil and Social Rights

were separated. However, the black population lacked financial resources to fight for their rights. With the " supreme court victory of Brown v. Board of Education of 1954 that rejected separation of white and black school systems (11)"[footnoteRef:6] marked the beginning of civil and social right movements. However, this supreme court decision did not have immediate effects, nevertheless, it assisted in producing effects such as boycotts, and marches that marked the era of civil rights movements, and civil disobedience in the United States. For example, the bus boycott that happened in 1955 was designed to oppose the city's policy of… Continue Reading...

Miscarriage Of Justice in Gideon V Wainwright

Injustice in the supreme court Gideon v. Wainwright This was a case where Gideon was a defendant and was denied the right to have a counsel defending him because he was not charged with a capital offense. The Florida court argued that the court was only obliged to provide him with a counsel if he was charged with a capital offense. However, upon taking the case to the supreme court, it was determined that every citizen was entitled to a counsel who would defend… Continue Reading...

Personal Thought on Three Articles

equivalent to sentencing to them life, and this has been curtailed by the supreme court. However, judges have skirted the law, and instead of offering life sentences, they are now offering long sentences without a chance of parole, which in a real sense is similar to a life sentence. This is quite unfair to juveniles because it denies them the opportunity to reform and lead normal lives after serving their sentence. Jails are meant to reform individuals and not house them till they are aged. Juveniles should be given priority and encouraged to amend their wrong behaviors by offering… Continue Reading...

Philosophical Influences on the American Constitution

of the cases and constitution. While Congress establishes the supreme court and lower court in the United States, however, the President appoints the judges based on the consent and advise of the Senate. (Kilman,. & Costello 2000). More than one and a half century after Montesquieu formulated the theory of separation of power, his work continued to guide jurist and politicians in the United States. Analysis of the supreme court reading reveals that Montesquieu is still having influence in the U.S. judicial decisions. For example, the supreme court invoked Montesquieu doctrine under Bowsher v. Synar "that struck down the… Continue Reading...

Concept Of Judicial Philosophy, Social Security, and Political Realism in the U.s.

Judicial Philosophy of the supreme court Judicial philosophy is a concept that refers to the way judges understand and interpret the law in relation to the specific cases they are handling. This concept emerges from the fact that while laws are universal and broad, they need to be applied to specific cases based on the judge's understanding and interpretation of the law as well as the unique circumstances surrounding the case. The two most common judicial philosophies of the supreme court are judicial activism and judicial restraint,… Continue Reading...

First Amendment and Broadcasting Content

inappropriate material, even if it is not intended that they purchase the product. In the past, the U.S. supreme court has allowed censorship of certain types of language with the explicit purposes of protecting children. In the Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, "deliberate and repetitive use of words referring to excretory or sexual activities during an afternoon broadcast could be heard by children" ("First Amendment and Censorship," 2017, par.15). But the proposed advertisement for our company's new Scantily Clad line of clothing does not contain explicit language or images, merely innuendo: "So Light You Won't Know You are Wearing… Continue Reading...

Discrimination and Social Justice Issues Today

societal benefits. Yours truly, X UNIT 5 DISCUSSION Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was one of the most significant US supreme court cases of the post-Reconstruction era. The case involved Plessy, who refused to occupy a railway car designated for people of color alone and instead sat in a car deemed to be for whites only. The supreme court at the time held that it was constitutionally permissible to mandate racial segregation as long as the separate facilities were equivalent to one another. The Brown v. Board of Education (1954) decision, however, overturned Plessy, first noting the logistical impossibility of creating facilities which were… Continue Reading...

Affordable Care Act and Marijuana

 When the Affordable Care Act was upheld by the supreme court, several people commended the Court for refusing to remove the only social protection they had which was established and improved by the New Deal as well as the Great Society. The House of Congress agreed to allow certain states have a significant level of command on the way federal programs such as Medicaid were implemented on the condition that it would be free to set up and enlarge its planned national entitlement schemes (Brown-Nagin, 2013). A huge disagreement in the beliefs of federalism has… Continue Reading...

Guantanamo Bay Essay

that the list of things wrong at Guantanamo Bay is very long indeed.   To date, the U.S. supreme court has extended the writ of habeas corpus and Common Article 3 protections of the Geneva Conventions to the prisoners detained at Guantanamo Bay (Falk & Juergensmeyer, 2012). According to the editors of the Harvard Law Review (2014), “In Boumediene v. Bush, the supreme court established the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus review for detainees at Guantanamo Bay” (Constitutional Law - Guantanamo Habeas - D.C. Circuit Holds That Petitioner Was Properly Detained as "Part Of" Enemy Force, p. 2138). Pursuant to… Continue Reading...

The Right to Privacy

other than the individual and whoever he or she chooses to notify should know anything about that person’s life. The supreme court has said as much about the right to privacy, which is why the author of this document agrees with that legal entity about this matter. The supreme court’s rulings on the subject have a significant amount to do with the distinction between privacy and legal transgressions. If the latter are not involved, then what one chooses to do with one’s life should be kept as private as one would have it be. 3. In retrospect, it certainly appears… Continue Reading...

Judges Code Of Conduct Improvement Strategies

Judicial Impropriety in United States supreme court A judicial impropriety occurs when a judge disregards existing legal standards expected of him /her when they are discharging their roles during judicial proceedings. For instance, a judge who does not base his or her ruling on the evidence provided and the applicable laws but disregards a defendant while giving undue advantage to the prosecutor or the litigant commits judicial impropriety (Leyland & Anthony, 2016). Judicial impropriety has been reported Judiciary of the United States on several occasions. For instance,… Continue Reading...

Constitutional Law and the Rowan County V Lund Case

the First Amendment by “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. Therefore, when the supreme court finally makes its deliberations in Rowan County v. Lund, it should rule in favor of Rowan County. The Rowan County practices have been grossly misunderstood and misrepresented. Thus far, federal courts have ruled against Rowan County, claiming for example, “the prayer practice served to identify the government with Christianity and risked conveying to citizens of minority faiths a message of exclusion,” (Lund v. Rowan County, North Carolina, No. 15-1591 (4th Cir. 2017)). The media has pounced on the case, particularly because “97 percent of… Continue Reading...

Legal Precedent Constitution Religion and Education

practices that it is sometimes taken for granted. Courts of final appeal, like the supreme court and the supreme courts of states, will tend towards upholding status quo unless there is a clear and decisive reason why a new precedent should be established. Their decisions will be based on several factors: the merits of the original case, the validity of the precedent law, and their own personal positions on the issue. Teachers would do well to understand Constitutional law better, as well as the laws governing educational practice in their own state. When in doubt, a teacher can always… Continue Reading...