• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Are supreme court justices politicians in disguise?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Are Supreme Court justices politicians in disguise? (60) The United States Supreme Court is argued to make both political and judicial decisions even though it is a judicial body. A Judicial Decision is a decision based on the law. Whether that law is right or wrong is of no concern to the judiciary because that is a political decision. A political decision is such that should the death penalty should be given for murder, whereas the judicial decision would have been whether the person was guilty of that crime. To some extent the inevitable answer is yes, the main reason being is judicial review. In the United Kingdom the powers of judicial review only extend to ultra vires, the power to say that the government has exceeded its powers given to it by law; what it cannot do is say the law is invalid. In the United States the Supreme Court can declare laws to be unconstitutional. This is because of the power as introduced by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury Vs Madison. Therefore it can strike down laws made by congress and also executive actions if it so chooses. ...read more.

Middle

The Constitution does not mention contraception or privacy, but the Court declared that the other rights in the Constitution contained a "penumbra" of implied rights, and the general right to privacy was determined to be one of these rights. The statute prohibiting use of contraceptives was then voided as an infringement of the right of marital privacy Arguably the more activist a court, the more political it is, and as many liberal courts have been activist courts it can be said the more liberal a court is the more political it gets. A non-activist conservative court is arguably less likely to make political decisions since it does not believe in a living constitution and does not interpret as loosely as does a liberal court. Therefore whether or not a supreme court can be deemed political pretty much depends on the type of court that it is. Therefore with many arguments stating that the court at the moment may be considered conservative may mean it is less political. However sometimes a conservative court can be activist, such as the Supreme Court in the 1930s that struck down FDRs new deal legislation because they were pro-business. ...read more.

Conclusion

Governor Orval Faubus deployed the Arkansas National Guard to support the segregationists that were trying to physically block the Little Rock nine. Eisenhower attempted to de-escalate the situation and summoned the Governor to meet him. The President warned the governor not to interfere with the Supreme Court's ruling, but in the end had to enforce the supreme court ruling by sending federal troops to assist the little rock nine. In conclusion, the Supreme Court justices should be seen as politicians in disguise to a certain extent as the decisions they make usually have some political standing. However these decisions may also be circumstantial, such as the Bush V. Gore decision, so the political aspect of the court is part of the evolution of the Supreme Court and was not meant to be there. The extent to which a Supreme Court justice can be seen as a politician is defined by whether or not they are a loose constructionist or in an activist court which usually go hand in hand. This is because they do not just stick to the constitution, but they also interpret the constitution in the context of the modern era thus making a political decision. ?? ?? ?? ?? Rachael Burden 13A ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level United States section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Here's what a star student thought of this essay

4 star(s)

Response to the question

This student answers the question very well by splitting their essay into a section on why the Supreme Court is judicial, and a section on why it is political. This not only shows that the student has an excellent grasp ...

Read full review

Response to the question

This student answers the question very well by splitting their essay into a section on why the Supreme Court is judicial, and a section on why it is political. This not only shows that the student has an excellent grasp of the need to consider both sides of the argument, but it also shows they can organise their knowledge. They talk about the Supreme Court or closely related topics (such as the president nominating a judge) for the whole essay, which is good as it shows they have enough knowledge to answer the question and aren't struggling to find things to write.

Level of analysis

The evidence used in this essay is excellent. Any question on the judiciary should quote the names of court cases, as this shows you know specific examples to prove your point, as well as a general understanding. This student uses such examples well, such as "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka" (which is famous and important, showing they are aware of broad issues) as well as "Griswold v. Connecticut" (which is less famous, suggesting they can also specialise their knowledge when they need to select the most relevant bits). Students always need to make sure they are using enough knowledge, but explaining why that knowledge is significant as well: when the student says "This however is not necessarily a negative thing", it's good because it shows they are evaluating the consequences of the evidence. However, the entire fourth paragraph is just a list of details about events - it would be better to spend half of that paragraph talking about why Griswold vs. Connecticut was so important. The conclusion to this essay is excellent as it says "to a certain extent": this shows that the student is aware that more than one interpretation on the Supreme Court is valid, but that they have the knowledge to say which one is more valid than the other.

Quality of writing

The student makes excellent use of political terminology such as "security of tenure" and so on, which is good as it shows more specific knowledge than something general and non-political like "they stay in their posts for a long time". The spelling, grammar and so on are excellent, which makes the essay easier to read and the student appears confident in their writing. Also, the style the essay is written in is A Level standard, as the student doesn't use informal words or phrases, which is good because it is dealing with a serious historical topic.


Did you find this review helpful? Join our team of reviewers and help other students learn

Reviewed by lordharvey 24/04/2012

Read less
Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level United States essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Outline how and why federalism has changed since the 1960s.

    5 star(s)

    'The bridge to nowhere' being a prime example where millions were spent on a bridge connecting a small town to it's local airport in Alaska replacing a 7 minute ferry route. Also with the 'spending habit' of the federal government, there were many arguments that stated that the federal government

  2. Marked by a teacher

    "The Main Difference Between the UK And US Constitution Is That One Is Flexible ...

    4 star(s)

    Because the Prime Minister is such a leading figure in the executive it is suggested that Tony Blair can tell the executive what to do and in effect is ruling the country in a dictatorial fashion. But this situation can only occur due to the huge majority involved.

  1. How well does the US Constitution Work

    be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems. Conservatives support limited government, limited taxation, and a balanced budget. Some admit the necessity of taxes, but insist that taxes should be low.

  2. "The conflicting interests of the Great Powers made its failure inevitable." Discuss this veredict ...

    When Napoleon was in power, the main powers had to unite, as it was the only way they could win their common enemy. But after they had already accomplished their victory over Napoleon and he was exiled in Elba, they had no other common enemies or aims, making it easier for individuality to rise.

  1. Describe the process of impeachment and explain why it is difficult to remove the ...

    He was impeached for perjury, obstruction of justice and malfeasance in office. The Constitution doesn't outline these as impeachable offences. The term "high crimes" may vary in opinions of different people. So, the lack of clarity of the terms for impeachment may give supporters of the President an excuse to

  2. Is the USA still a federal state?

    constitutional amendment that would eliminate the rights of Same-Sex couples to marry. State governments can also decide the day their state holds an election during either Presidential or Congressional elections. Therefore states can exercise their own political power, particularly when power has devolved from the federal government.

  1. '9 politicians sitting on a bench.' Critically evaluate this description of the US Supreme ...

    This could be perceived in one of two ways. The first is that Bush may have elected Souter based solely on his ability as a judge, which is suggested by the fact that he made decisions that Bush may not have made, or alternatively, Bush chose Souter as Bush thought Souter would reflect the president?s own judicial and political

  2. Assess the view that the US Constitution often ensures limited government

    The senate then run the trial. If found to have been involved in criminal activity by a two thirds majority, the accused can be removed from office. Only two presidents have been impeached, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Both were acquitted by the Senate. This power of Congress stops any members of the judiciary or executive

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work