1. The Supreme Court Took the Power of Judicial Review for itself in the Case “Dred Scott 1857”
True. since the case had already been decided, and as Scott was in the free state of Illinois, the court ought to have based their ruling on free status of illinois. The case was highly involved in suspension of the doctrine of habeas corpus. As well, it could be taken as one of the catalyst of the Civil War.
2. The Supreme Court Issue a Informa Pauperis in the Most Constitutional Issues
True. Most cases that head to the US supreme court are constitutional based, and most of them relate to groups of poor citizens who feel that their rights are infridged by the state or the federal authorities. According to records, about 80% of these cases that head here are allowed informa pauperis. That it filling and some other normal costs.
3. The Bill of Rights Has Been Fully Applied to the States Since the Ratification of the 1787 Virginia Plan
False. Almost half of the American states still did not uphold freedom of black members of society, something that later culminated into the Civil War. Slaverly was still in place, and there was a threat to its expansion by those areas where it had not existed before.
4. The Clear and Present Danger Doctrine Was Enunciated in the Case of “Schenk v. Uranga”
True. The judge had agued that inciting people against joining the military forces at the times of war was illegal, and could lead to a clear and present danger to society. In this case. the judge brought up the simple idea, which indicates that if one yelled fire in a theater, while there was no acctual fire , this would definitely threaten the life of people in the theater at that particular time.
5. The Supreme Court Was Reluctant to Declare “separate but equal” Unconstitutional Due to Its Belief in the Doctrine of Stare Decisis
True. The “separate but equal” had been observed from different quarters as unequal and discriminatory. Most judges in the Supreme Court had found it convincing to hold it by the earlier decision made by the same Court. The Supreme Court in the earlier decision had not only supported this doctorine, but also the states that demanded it, and thus, lendering it constitutioonal.
Explain the Process for Appointing a Supreme Court Justice. What Actors and Factors Affect the Selection Process?
The right to appoint Supreme Court judges in the US is the prerogative of the US President. However, this is not done without approval of the US Senate. The constitutional provision provides that the President will nominate judges, and having received the advice and support from the Senate, he will be deemed to have appointed the judges. The President may make a list of his intended appointees and then pass them to the Senate.
The Senate may authorize that the justice committee of the house conducts interviews to the candidates and gives a report to the house. This report is firstly voted for while in the committee, although the outcome of the vote may not turn down the appointment. That can only be done by the whole Senate house. However, the outcome of the vote is likely to influence how the Senate votes. When the President feels that his nominee is likely to lose in the Senate, he may withdraw the name, so as to avoid humiliation. Sometimes, an appointment may take place when the house is on recess. When that happens, the appointee will be in office till the end of the subsequent Senate session.
How Does the Majority Opinion Differ from the Concurring and Dissenting Opinions?
During the vote by a bench in the case, the majority will have the case decided on their opinion, as the Judgment. A dissenting opinion is a written opinion by the dissenting judge or judges giving their reasons for failing to agree with the decision reached. For example, in the case of John Joseph Delling versus Idaho State in the Supreme Court in Idaho, the majority opinion held that Mr. Delling, who had been convicted a killer, would not be granted a right to appeal the earlier ruling.
The majority judges held the opinion that the State of Idaho had barred individuals of trying to justify their actions in the platform of being insane. However, three judges had dissented. One of these dissenting judges was Stephen Breyer, who in his dissenting opinion argued that, though Idaho had barred an argument in such case based on insanity, he held that it was the duty of the government to carry on investigations and proof the insanity question raised by the convict. Again, he held that American Psychiatric Association, which is a professional organization, argues that serious mental illnesses are likely to severely impair patient’s rational ability to make an appreciation of the badness of such conduct.
Another opinion that is largely held by the judges is concurring opinion. This is an opinion, whereby the judge agrees with the judgment, but differs with the majority in the reasons for reaching such a conclusion. For instance, in Michael M. V Superior Court, Certiorari to The Supreme Court of California, the petitioner made an argument that the statute rape law was discriminative on gender basis and, thus, unconstitutional. He had contested that the law portrayed men in bad light. However the majority opinion ruled in favor of the statute, and stated that the most possible perpetrators of rape cases were men, and that sexual act is more risky for women than it is for men. However, three justices made a concurring opinion. One of these judges, Justice Brennan on his opinion, argued that the majority had put too much emphasis on the statute and gave his reason for judgment as that the government has the responsibility to fight the vice and, thus, had to make known the objective and the relationship that existed between that objective and the classification. He held that the State could not have achieved this goal with a gender neutral law that would be less effective.
Does the Constitution Guarantee a Right to Privacy? What Would Justice Roberts Jr. Say?
The US constitution has given right to privacy in it bills of rights. However, this is not so directly expressed, and does not use the word privacy. While considering the rulings by the Supreme Court, various constitutional bill of rights portions have been used to make a judgment in favor of privacy. This is more visible in the Fourth Amendment, which has offered protection to persons while at homes, or from searches by government that are not warranted by the court of law. The First Amendment, as well, gives an avenue to an individual right to privacy. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Louis Brandeis, on Olmstead v. the United States, held that that those who had given life to American constitution did so to secure happiness for American people, and that they wanted their minds, emotions, and sensations be well protected. They bestowed against the State or Federal authorities, the right of a person to be let do their daily activities alone.
As this has been a decision that was sustained by most judges, it was most likely the chief justice Roberts Junior was likely to go by that. In the case of Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Justice Roberts, indicated that such harsh laws that were seen to act in a contravention with the Fourth Amendment would not be acceptable. He indicates that particular law that had led to detention of the little girl had been repealed.
What Methods Has the Women's Movement Used to Achieve Civil Rights According to Fiorina?
Most women civil rights groups resulted in the nonviolent methods of having their grievances heard by society. Women organized strikes and boycotting among other methods to have their grievances addressed. Again, they worked jointly with other civil rights minority groups, so as to have a formidable force with a common goal of respecting the minorities.