Supreme Court History Essay

supreme court history Essay
In 1789, the final draft of the constitution of the United States came into effect. In article three it
calls for "[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and
in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." In the
article it neither says the duties, powers, or any organization of the supreme court. If left this up to
congress and to the justices of the court itself for these details.
The very first bill introduced in the United States Senate was the Judiciary Act of 1789, led by
Connecticut's Oliver Ellsworth. It divided the country in 13 judicial districts. They were further
organized into the Eastern, Middle, and ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The early federal courts failed to issue strong opinions or even take on controversial cases. The
Supreme Court was not even sure if it had the power to consider the constitutionality of laws passed
by Congress.
This situation seemed to have changed drastically in 1801 when President John Adams appointed
John Marshall of Virginia to be the fourth Chief Justice. Confident that nobody would tell him not
to, Marshall took clear and firm steps to define the role and powers of both the Supreme Court and
the judiciary system. This is something that seemed to have gone unnoticed so far.
The Supreme Court, under John Marshall, defined itself with its historic 1803 decision in the case of
Marbury v. Madison. In this single landmark case, the Supreme Court established its power to
interpret the U.S. Constitution and to determine the constitutionality of laws passed by congress and
the state legislatures. John Marshall went on to serve as Chief Justice for a record 34 years, along
with several Associate Justices who served for well over 20 years. During his time on the bench,
Marshall succeeded in molding the federal judicial system into what many, as I do, consider to be
today's most powerful branch of government.
Before settling at nine justices in 1869, the number of Supreme Court Justices changed six times. In
its entire history, the Supreme Court has had only 16 Chief Justices, and over 100 Associate
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Chief Justice Case Study
From the time of the Roper ruling, the Court has seen the departure of five Justices. Chief Justice
Rehnquist was replaced by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice O'Connor was succeeded by Justice
Samuel Alito, Justice Souter preceded Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Stevens was replaced by
Justice Elena Kagan, and Justice Scalia was succeeded by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Predicting the
current Court's position on the precedent and the possibility of overturning the Roper holding can be
assessed by investigating the justices' Martin–Quinn scores, their individual votes on similar cases,
and other sources that depict their stance on the death penalty and juvenile criminal cases. Chief
Justice Roberts' thirteen–year tenure has allowed him to vote ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Six years after her confirmation, Sotomayor strongly dissented in Glossip, remarking that the state
does not hold full autonomy in their manner of executing criminals, highlighting her shift from
supporting the constitutionality of the death penalty (576 U.S. ___). This is reinforced by
Sotomayor's Martin–Quinn scores becoming increasingly more liberal as the years progress (Martin
and Quinn 2002). Sotomayor's increasing liberal votes prove her leniency towards punishing
minors, supported by her votes for the majority and concurrence in both landmark juvenile criminal
cases, Graham and Miller. According to her liberal voting record, there is little reason to believe that
Sotomayor would vote in favor of overturning

Unique Paths to the Supreme Court Essay
Article III of the Constitution of the United States vests judicial power in "one supreme Court". With
incredible adaptability, the Constitution has stood the test of time. Largely due to the limited
specificity as to the application of its words, the Constitution has allowed the character of the Court
to be historically defined by the individuals who have held the position of "Chief Justice of the
United States". The ideology and individual Constitutional interpretation of each Chief Justice has
changed both the influential power and message of the Court. Earl Warren, Warren Burger, and John
G. Roberts, Jr. have all successfully been appointed to the Court as Chief Justices. And although the
Constitutionally proscribed process of ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
It had been a long time since Warren had practiced law and he had only practiced for a short amount
of time after law school (Newton 42). During a private meeting at the McClellan Air Force Base in
California, Eisenhower's Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr. told Governor Warren that
President Eisenhower was going to appoint him as Solicitor General until a spot on the Supreme
Court became vacant. "The President believed that service as Solicitor General would be valuable
prior to membership" on the Court (Schwartz 2). Typical of standard informal appointing procedure,
Attorney General Brownell, Jr. played a large role in Warren's transition from Governor to Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court. According to David O'Brien in Storm Center, "Most presidents
delegate responsibility to their attorneys general and close White House adverse for selecting
candidates and getting them throughout the Senate (O'Brien 40). Only a few days after the meeting
with Attorney General Brownell, Jr., Earl Warren's future changed when Chief Justice Fred M.
Vinson died unexpectedly of a heart attack (Schwartz 3). President Eisenhower had promised
Warren the first vacant seat without expecting Chief Justice Vinson's seat to become vacant;
Eisenhower had an Associate Justice's seat in mind for Earl Warren (Schwartz 3). While talking with
President Eisenhower at a White House breakfast, Representative Willam S. Mailliard, who had
been Earl

John Marshall: The Most Influential Chief Justice of the...
John Marshall: The Most Influential Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
In the beginning years of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court was a struggling
institution due to the lack of effectiveness of the Chief Justices and was not highly regarded by the
executive and legislative branches of the government. The third Chief Justice in only twelve years,
John Marshall put an end to the Supreme Court's lack of influence after his appointment by
President John Adams in 1801. John Marshall was the most influential Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court because he was the first to make it a just and effective establishment that was equal to the two
other branches of government by his court rulings and policies.
Through his ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This was significant because it declared the Supreme Court as the end of the line on any court cases
and that once a ruling was made, that would be the end of it.
In Fletcher v. Peck, Marshall made the first ruling declaring a state legislative act as
unconstitutional. This was a step towards states' rights versus the federal government. The
importance of this is that nine years later states' rights would again come up. Through bribery, the
Georgia legislature granted 35 million acres to private speculators. Through its next legislature, it
cancelled the transaction due to public objection. The Supreme Court ruled that the grant was a
contract and that it could not be overruled or impaired. This case ruled in favor of all property right
holders against popular pressures and clarified the meanings of grants and contracts for future
rulings.
Marshall's next case was one of the most important during his term, as it has remained lucid ever
since. McColloch v. Maryland was the first case in which a state attempted to assert authority over
the federal government. In 1819, the state of Maryland attempted to abolish a branch of the Bank of
the United States by imposing taxes on its notes. The final ruling declared that the bank was
constitutional by invoking the Hamilton Doctrine of Implied Powers. In ruling this, the power given
to the federal government was made distinct and in doing

Conformation to the Supreme Court Essay
The appointment and conformation to the Supreme Court has become on of the most sought after
and most prestigious positions in the U.S. Government. In the past two hundred years the Supreme
Court has changed in many different ways and with each decision affecting the delicate balance of
the U.S. legal system the appointment of justices has become a very watched over subject. In all
conformation and appointment to the Supreme Court there is politics involved but with each
presiding president their agenda is focused towards appointing a justice that expresses their ideas on
the court.      The Appointment process is delegated to the
president in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution and states, "shall nominate, ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
Some justices have even held congressional positions. In 1908–1912 William H. Taft was president
afterward he was appointed to the Court and then was named chief justice in 1921.
     Before 1936 there was a religious biased to the court in that all
of the justices that were appointed were protestant. When Andrew Jackson appointed Roger B.
Taney a catholic it broke the protestant preeminence on the court.4 Another misrepresentation to the
Supreme Court was the geographical. In the courts pre–civil war history it was assumed that each
region should have representation on the court, meaning that the larger more populous states like
Virginia, New York, and Massachusetts should have a seat on the court. After the Civil war this
tradition faded with the expansion of the United States.2      A total
of six justices have been born out of the United States all of whom served on the court before 1940.
The first Justice to be born outside the United States was James Wilson, in1742 and came to
America as a young man from Scotland. He was an original signer of the Declaration of
Independence and a member of the 1787 Constitutional Convention; he was also one of the original
members of the Supreme Court. One of the most important was George Sutherland who came here
from England and became a justice in 1922 and was well known for constantly voting against most
of Franklin

Advantages And Disadvantages Of Judicial Appointment...
Justice of India, the appointment should be made as a healthy convention. In July 1998, the
President of India asked for the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court on various areas of the
judgment of 1993 including the issue of consultation. In October 1998, the Supreme Court in its
advisory opinion confirmed the primacy of the Chief Justice's opinion over that of the President in
appointing judges. The Court, however, observed that the 'sole, individual opinion of the Chief
Justice of India' does not constitute 'consultation' within the meaning of Arts 217 and 222(1) of the
Constitution. In appointing judges to the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice must make a
recommendation in consultation with the four most senior puisne judges of the Supreme Court. In
the case of appointments to the High Courts, the Chief Justice must consult the two most senior
puisne judges of the Supreme Court. The views of the puisne judges 'should be in writing and should
be conveyed to the [President] by the Chief Justice of India along with his [or her] views'. The
Supreme Court ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Despite this, in order to maintain public confidence in the appointment system and to ensure judicial
independence the commission system is perhaps a very effective mechanism for judicial
appointment. However, to ensure the effectiveness of this mechanism the commission should be
representative in nature comprising members of the executive, legislature, judiciary, legal profession
and lay persons. In addition, it should be ensured that the commission uses a system which is
transparent and open to public scrutiny. In this regard the composition and working system of the
South African Judicial Service Commission may be an acceptable model. Such a mechanism may be
very effective to ensure the appointment of the best–qualified people to judicial

Chief Justice In Supreme Court History: John Marshall
Being the longest serving Chief Justice in Supreme Court History, John Marshall had plenty of
opportunity to be influential. Out of all of his court cases, I believe that Marbury v Madison was his
most important court case. This court case has always been one that was taught to us since we were
in high school, along with more, but out of the ones talked about in the Modules. This is one that I
am most familiar with and believe it is most important. This court case is a landmark court case and
it established judicial review. This is important because it makes sure that whatever is decided does
not go against the US Constitution. The case came about because when Marbury became appointed
a justice of the peace in the last hours while James Adams

Due Process Model And Crime Control Model
The two models that we have encountered in this class are the due process model and the law–and–
order, or the crime control model. The due process model can be observed, most famously, during
the Warren Court in the 1960s, during Warren's time as Chief Justice the court was most concerned
with protecting and extending the rights of the accused. The due process model puts more strain on
the prosecution to prove that the criminal's rights were not infringed upon and that he actually
committed the crime. In contrast, the crime control model is most concerned with lowering crime
and deterring future criminals by prosecuting and processing criminals and cases as fast as possible.
In some ways, this model resembles an assembly line, in the sense that it attempts to process cases
as quickly and efficiently as possible. This model is much more concerned with convictions rather
than upholding the rights of the accused. It is most prevalent starting in the late 1960s when Nixon
appointed Warren Burger as Chief Justice, this model continued on with Chief Justice Rehnquist in
the 1980s and continues on today under the current Chief Justice, John Roberts. However, the crime
control model finds some opposition in the Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan who were
appointed by President Obama, these two Justices tend to lean more towards the due process model.
One great example of the due process model being put into effect can be found in the majority
opinion delivered by Justice

Chief Justice Dbq Essay
Chief Justice William Howard Taft was very influential in initiating improvements to the federal
judicial system. William Taft, a former president, aided in the development of policies that would
unify the judiciary system and aid in stream lining the federal judicial system. He enacted changes
to the judicial system that improved the system immensely. The method that he used to achieve the
many improvements that he enacted during his tenure as a Chief Justice was through legislative Acts
such as the Act of 14 of September 1922. One of the first changes that occurred under tenure was the
passage of the Act of 14 of September 1922. The passage marked the "beginning of a new chapter in
the administration of federal courts" (Pg.3). The allowed

Warren Burger: 15th Chief Justice
Warren Burger is the 15th Chief Justice of The United States of America. Warren Burger was a legal
scholar, and was known for his liberal rulings. This essay will discuss, Warren Burger's life before
becoming a Supreme Court Justice, his court's philosophy and his courts legacy. Warren Burger then
went on to attend John A. Johnson High School, and he participated in numerous sports such as
football, hockey and track. He was also president of the school's student body. He also wrote articles
about high school sports for his local newspaper. He graduated High school in 1952, and was
awarded a scholarship for his numerous activities in his high school. He turned down his scholarship
because his family was financially unable to support. He enrolled in at the University of Minnesota,
where he sold life insurance to support himself financially through college. He then attended St.
Paul College of law and graduated in 1931 ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Wade which gave women have more control over her body. The Burger court had multiple issues
that included ethnic diversity in schools and affirmative action cases, such as the Regents of the
University of California v. Bakke. On liberties concerning religious rights in schools, the court
outlawed the practice of religious exercise in schools in cases such as Stone v. Graham, but
maintained a cases like Widmar v Vincent explained that colleges cannot make religious student
secular activities in colleges. (Sergey) Warren Burger retired in 1986, and has left an impactful
legacy on society. He also the longest serving Chief Justice of the 20th century, by the time he died,
he had received numerous awards like the James Madison Award for Distinguished Public Service.
He is interesting Justice that served on the Supreme Court because of his philosophical approach to
the court was far different, than most other Supreme Court Justices to serve on the Supreme

Warren: The Best Chief Justice
After Felix Frankfurter retired in 1962, and after first Arthur Goldberg and then Abe Fortas
succeeded the long–time justice, Warren found himself in the majority of a number of equal justice
cases. These included, Loving v. Virginia, Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, James v. Maryland,
Escobedo v. Illinois, and Miranda v. Arizona. In the 1960s and 70s, a number of commentators
regarded Earl Warren as one of the greatest justices ever on the U.S. Supreme Court. Maybe, some
contended, such as Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall, that he was the best chief justice we ever
had (Belknap, 2005). But, in March, 1966, Warren turned 75. Two years later, in June, 1968, he
informed President Johnson, first in person and then by letter, that he

Chief Justice Earl Warren 's Justice
Chief Justice Earl Warren accomplished a great deal before finally being appointed as the Chief
Justice. He was elected as the Governor of California, and served three consecutive terms of office.
In his early years he was the District Attorney in California and also served as the Attorney General
of California. In his time as a District Attorney Warren earned himself a reputation for being tough
on crime, he soon gained a statewide reputation as a tough, no–nonsense district attorney who
fought corruption in government. Chief Justice Earl Warren was appointed by president Dwight D.
Eisenhower in 1953 after Warren lost to Eisenhower and Richard Nixon in the election. Earl Warren
was a right wing republican but ended up being more liberal on the Supreme Court than anyone had
every expected. He presided over some very significant cases that will be discussed below. The three
that will be discussed, perhaps the most important, are Brown V. Board of Education in 1954,
Gideon V. Wainwright in 1963, and Miranda V. Arizona in 1966. Now don't be misled, Chief Justice
Earl Warren did a great deal in his career, and influenced very much, however, his most prominent
cases that affected criminal justice and the community are the focus of this essay. These three
landmark cases greatly affect the criminal justice community and the general public even today.
Brown v. Board of Education was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that
declared state laws establishing

John Marshall: The Great Chief Justice Essay
John Marshall: The Great Chief Justice
John Marshall was born in Fauquier County, Virginia on September 4, 1755.
He was the first son of Thomas Marshall and Mary Randolph Keith. His role in
American history is undoubtedly a very important one. As a boy, Marshall was educated by his
father. He learned to read and write, along with some lessons in history and poetry. At the age of
fourteen, he was sent away to school, and a year later he returned home to be tutored by a Scottish
pastor who lived with the Marshall family.
As a young college student, John Marshall was particularly impressed by the lectures of professor
George Wythe. Wythe was a lawyer, judge, and a signer of the ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
His reasoning for taking the job in France was partly because it was only a temporary mission and
also because he wanted to be of service to his country, aiding in peaceful relations with France.
When he found out that France expected to be paid, he was outraged and believed they were
soliciting bribery. Although the mission to France was a failure, he returned to the US a hero.
Marshall was appointed to the position of secretary of state by John
Adams in 1800. He was put in charge of foreign affairs and was often left in charge of the
government when Adams was gone. Then, later that year, he was appointed to be chief justice of the
US by Adams before Thomas Jefferson took over the presidency.
Thomas Jefferson soon took office and John Marshall was now chief justice. Although the two were
distant cousins, they held very different positions and belonged to opposing political parties.
Jefferson believed that the constitution should be interpreted strictly to keep the government's power
relatively low. In the article, Mr. McGinty sums up Marshall's views of what government should be:
"Marshall believed in a strong central government, in the
Constitution as the key to the laws of the land, and in courts as the supreme custodians of those
laws–views that would influence his shaping of the Supreme
Court." Marshall believed that the Constitution should

Chief Justice Rehnquist 's Quote On The Supreme Court Of...
This paper will argue why Chief Justice Rehnquist's quote on the ever expanding authority of the
Supreme Court of the United States is an accurate depiction of the social adoption of a third
legislative branch. Through the power of judicial review, the Court has been granted legistoral
authority that was not constitutionally delegated to the Court, and with this new authority the
institutional practices of obtaining a seat will be examined. This questioning stems from the fact that
a court of nine unelected citizens have similar legislative authority of those elected to seats of
authority in the Executive and Legislative branch. Yet, while this may be deemed undemocratic, it
will be made clear that the institution of an unelected Court is essential to preserving the
Constitution in a way that a democratically elected court is not possible of doing. While the Court
has been adapted in a way that varies from the founders' intent, it is evident that the citizens of the
country have adopted the idea of a more legislative court, and that the preservation of this new Court
is essential. For one to understand the authoritative changes made in the adoption of a more
legislative like Court, it is necessary to first have some knowledge of the initial intent, and authority
granted to it in the Constitution. Out of the three branches, Article three which addresses the
Supreme Court has the shortest and most explicit passage in the Constitution. While section one
simply gives the

The Supreme Court And Chief Justice Essay
1. How did the Supreme Court and Chief Justice John Marshall establish the principle of "judicial
review?" Explain the doctrine and its genesis and discuss two major Supreme Court cases since
2000 that have reinforced judicial authority over the States using this principle. In 1803, Marbury v.
Madison established a concept known as "judicial review". Supreme Court Chief Justice John
Marshall stated "the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature,
repugnant to the constitution, is void....It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is" (text at pages 72–73). Marshall gave the courts the right to
overturn cases against the legislative or executive branches, known as judicial review, giving
immense power to the judicial branch. Marbury arose out of partisan politics. John Adams, a
Federalist, lost the presidential election to Thomas Jefferson, a Republican. The Federalist Congress
scrambled to pass the Organic Act authorizing President Adams to appoint forty–two justices of the
peace. In the mayhem of Adam's last days in office, John Marshall, Secretary of State, neglected to
deliver the commissions. William Marbury and three others, who were denied their commissions,
asked the Supreme Court to order James Madison, the new Secretary of State, to deliver the
commissions (text pages 69–73). In a clever decision, Chief Justice Marshall appeased President
Thomas Jefferson by ruling against Marbury,

Mr. Chief Justice Pratik Parikh
Mr. Chief Justice Pratik Parikh delivered the opinion of the Court. On June 10, 2013 Annapolis
police, acting under state law, compelled Verizon Wireless, Inc. to provide "cell site location
information" or "CSLI" emanating from Respondent Arnold Santo's cell phone from April 1, 2013
through June 5, 2013. The CSLI information was secured without the benefit of a warrant or
probable cause. Nevertheless, with the information gathered, police were able to determine a pattern
in the Respondent's locations and communications that indicated a significant likelihood of his
participation in a criminal drug ring. The police were able to obtain a warrant to search Santo's home
on the basis of the CSLI along with other information about the ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
We granted certiorari. (2015). This Court has been asked to determine if Santo's Fourth Amendment
rights have been violated. We are asked to determine whether the government 's reliance on CSLI
data –– and the subsequent search of Santo's house –– violated the Respondent's Constitutional
rights. Respondent argues that the government violated the Fourth Amendment in gathering and
inspecting the CSLI without a warrant based on probable cause. This Court agrees. The Fourth
Amendment provides that, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." In the landmark case of
Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347 (1967), this Court addressed the scope of what constituted as a
"search and seizure." The case raised the question of whether searches were limited to "trespass" as
set by Olmstead v. United States 277 U.S. 438 (1928). This Court held "that the Fourth Amendment
protects people –– and not simply 'areas' –– against unreasonable searches and seizures, it becomes
clear that the reach of this Amendment cannot turn upon the presence or absence of a physical
intrusion into any given enclosure." Katz at 353. The case at bar raises the question as to whether the
usage of CSLI without probable cause is considered an unreasonable search and seizure. This Court
has addressed what constitutes a search in

Judicial Review: 1803 Chief Justice John Marshall
The first U.S. Supreme Court case to apply the principle of "judicial review" – the power of federal
courts to void acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution is considered to be one of the most
important cases in the Supreme Court history. This case was a landmark United States Supreme
Court case because the Court formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United
States under Article III of the Constitution (LII). Written in 1803 by Chief Justice John Marshall, the
decision played a key role in making the Supreme Court a separate branch of government on par
with Congress and the executive.
The issue that the case resolved was itself of little significance. It was all based on an issue of
political patronage, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Article III also says that the Court's appellate jurisdiction is subject to "such Exceptions and . . .
Regulations as the Congress shall make." No such provision is made with respect to the Court's
original jurisdiction. The Constitution thus implicitly suggests that, in contrast, the Court's original
jurisdiction is not subject to congressional regulation.
All of this legal detail is by way of introduction to the dilemma that John Marshall faced in
Marbury. The fundamental question was, did the Supreme Court have the jurisdiction (for example,
the constitutional authority) to issue the writ of "mandamus" that Marbury sought?
Marshall argued that in Section 13, Congress had improperly attempted to add to the Court's original
jurisdiction, as Article III implied Congress could never do. Congress did so, according to Marshall,
by conferring on the Supreme Court power to issue a writ of mandamus – that is, an order
compelling an official to carry out a non–discretionary ("ministerial") act.
But there are numerous problems with this argument. First, Article III appears to prohibit Congress
from making "exceptions" to (that is, subtractions from), or "regulations" of the Court's original
jurisdiction. Yet it never says Congress cannot add to that jurisdiction. Second, in what sense does
the power to issue a writ of mandamus that Section 13 granted actually add to the Court's
jurisdiction at all? A writ of mandamus is not a new type of case. And jurisdiction,

Chief Justice Earl Warren Essay
Chief Justice Earl Warren
Earl Warren was born March 19, 1891 in Los Angeles, California. Earl's father was a Norwegian
immigrant, which left him dealing with prejudice and equal rights at a very young age (Grace, 1).
This lead to early indications that law would be Earl's profession. Even before entering High School,
he listened to criminal cases at the Kern County courthouse. Attending the University of California
at Berkeley, Warren worked his way through college. He majored in political science for three years
before entering the law school at UC. "He received his B.L. degree in 1912 and his J.D. degree in
1914. On May 14, 1915, he was admitted to the California bar. After graduation Warren worked in
law offices in San Francisco and ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The Browns, an African American Family living in Topeka, Kansas, along with the NAACP
requested an injunction that would forbid the segregation of Topeka's public schools. This along
with similar cases were grouped together and presented in front of the Supreme Court (Cray 1–2).
On May 17, 1954, Chief Justice Warren read the decision of the unanimous Court: "We come
then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of
race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal,
deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it
does...We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no
place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs
and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the
segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment" (Schwartz, 198). The Supreme Court struck down the "separate but
equal" doctrine of Plessy for public education, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and required the
desegregation of schools across America (Cray, 1–2) .
Besides his work in the courtroom, Warren headed the commission that investigated the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy. He retired in 1969 and died on July 9, 1974,

The United States Supreme Court
Acclaim for asserting the United States Supreme Court as a substantial participant in the American
structure of government has been ascribed to the guidance of John Marshall as Chief Justice of the
United States Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835. By 1835, the Supreme Court had attained a level
of equality with the prowess and prestige as that of Congress and the Executive that was not present
before John Marshall was appointed to the position. Central to this development was the Court 's
adoption of the Constitution as its distinct reserve. Chief Justice John Marshall utilized judicial
review to eliminate the Supreme Court from the socio–political conflicts in government and to
institute the rule of law based on the principles established in the Constitution of the Unites States.
Marshall and his colleagues erected the Court 's recognized power by effectively affirming an
assertion to explain the Constitution and subsequently supplant the Constitution as supreme law in
the commonplace sequence of arbitration and by the end of his judgeship firmly supplanted the
Supreme Court's role in the U.S. system of government. John James Marshall came into this world
on September 24, 1755 in a small cabin built of logs near a small rural community in Virginia
known as Germantown. John was the first son born to Thomas Marshall and Mary Keith. His
mother and father went on to have fifteen children giving John eight sisters and six brothers.1 In the
beginning of the 1760s, the Thomas

The Great Chief Justice : John Marshall And The Rule Of Law
The Great Chief Justice: John Marshall and the Rule of Law by Charles F. Hobson examines the
judicial career of John Marshall, as well as the legal culture that helped to shape his political beliefs
and his major constitutional opinions. The author sources much of his information from the formal
opinions that Marshall issued during his judicial career. From these writings, Hobson presents
Marshall 's views on law and government and provides explanations for what in Marshall 's life
influenced those beliefs. Hobson explains that he has examined Marshall 's judicial writings through
"the perspective of the common law tradition in which [Marshall] was bred" (Hobson xiii). He states
that Marshall read legal texts with a great attention to detail in an attempt to understand the intent of
the writer. Similarly, Hobson tries to gain a better understanding of Marshall 's principles by
analyzing his legal writings. Because Marshall wrote with such care, looking into his writings
allowed Hobson to gain insight into the experiences of Marshall and to conclude how he came to
both his beliefs and principles. Marshall 's thought helps one understand cases before the Marshall
Court better because many of his decisions display common themes, which can be traced back to
experiences he has had in his life. Three significant life experiences helped to formulate Marshall 's
political principles and influence his judicial career: the American Revolution, the state legislature
of the

Chief Justice Jackson And Barnette's Case Analysis
In paragraph 8 Chief Justice says, "They are not merely made acquainted with the flag salute so that
they may be informed as to what it is or even what it means." I believe he is correct. The Jehovah's
Witness should not run to conclusion and do the pledge of allegiance, they should understand the
meaning of it first, then if they still don't seem okay with it, they should consider leaving public
school.
Now you decide. Which argument was more sound, the majority opinion or the dissent? Argue in
favor of one or the other in a short persuasive essay of about 300 words.
West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette's case is a very important case. Both judges, Justice
Jackson and Justice Frankfurter made very important points regarding the

The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court Essay
The Brethren – Inside the Supreme Court: Book Review
The Brethren, co–authored by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong, is an in–depth documentary of
the United States Supreme Court from 1969 to 1975, under the leadership of Warren Burger. The
book attempts to present the reader with what "really" goes on in the Supreme Court. It describes the
conferences, the personality of justices, and how justice's feel toward each other, items which are
generally hidden from the public. This book is comparable to a lengthy newspaper article. Written
more as a source of information than of entertainment, The Brethren is the brutal truth, but not
boring. The storytelling is clearly slanted against the Burger court but the overall quality of the work
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Rehnquist approved a play put on by the clerk's in which all the justices by the Chief found
amusing. Burger circulated a memo graciously thanking Rehnquist for his work on the party.
However at the next opportunity of case assignment's the junior justice found himself given only
one: an insignificant Indian tax dispute.
Woodward describes time and time again cases where the Burger would switch his vote to a
majority's just for the purposes of assigning the majority opinion. Also as Chief Justice, he would
wait to vote until all the other Justices have cast theirs. At first, he used this tactic to influence the
scope and direction of the decision. The book describes how Burger changed his conference votes so
he could assign the majority opinion of the court, angering William Douglas and William Brennen.
He also describes how Thurgood Marshall greeted Burger "Hey chiefy baby", getting a kick out of
making him feel uncomfortable. The reader sees how Harry Blackmun agonized at being considered
Burger's "boy" which eventually led to his breaking away from the conservative wing of the court.
Woodward also tells of the lack of respect the justices had for the abilities of Chief Justice Burger,
who wrote poorly reasoned opinions that embarrassed some members of the court.
The book shows how justices grow into their roles, either as a dealmaker or dissenter or leader. This
process sometimes takes many years. Justices mature and see

Case Of Christian Rossite: Chief Justice In Western Australia
The current legislation has caused issues for many Australians. This is illustrated in court in 2009,
with then 49 year Christian Rossite. Christian Rossite was a quadriplegic after an automotive
accident, and had asked his care provider if they would remove his PEG tube (feeding tube) from
him, unsure if it was legal or not the care provider called on the Chief Justice in Western Australia,
Wayne Martin who ruled in favour of Christian Rossite. Wayne Martin stated that Christian Rossite
was 'entitled to instruct his cares to remove a feeding tube from his stomach' (2009, Martin), causing
Christian Rossite to willingly starve to death. During this process Christian Rossite was reassured
that the option to return to the PEG tube (feeding tube) was available, but chose to continue.
Christian Rossite died from a chest infection soon after. His brother was quoted saying 'Death I
suspect comes as quite a relief for Christian' (2009, Rossite), as Christian was also quoted saying 'I
have no fear of death– just pain. I only fear pain.' (2009, Rossite). Christian Rossite died suffering,
in pain from not only starving, but also a chest infection, this could have been prevented if there was
sufficient legislation to allow Christian Rossite to die with peace. ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
There are two articles to the proposed solution, first Active Euthanasia, which is defined as 'The
intentional putting to death of a person with an incurable or painful disease intended as an act of
mercy' (2015, Pijnenborg L), Active Euthanasia would only be carried out, if an number of
conditions are ahead to. The second article in the proposed solution is Passive Euthanasia that is
defined as 'Passive euthanasia occurs when the patient dies because the medical professionals either
do something necessary to keep the patient alive, or when they stop doing something that is keeping
the patient alive.' (2014,

Advantages And Disadvantages Of Condition Of Employment
Condition of Employment
A person is qualified for appointment under Article 122B as a judge of the Federal Court, as a judge
of the Court of Appeal or as a judge of any of the High Courts if –
a) He is a citizen; and
b) For the ten years preceding his appointment he has been an advocate of those courts or any of
them or a member of the judicial and legal service of the Federation or of the legal service of a
State, or sometimes one and sometimes another.
Judges of Federal Court
Federal Court judges sit in the Federal Court. As stated earlier, the Chief Justice, the President of the
Court of Appeal, and the two Chief Judges of the High Courts are also automatically Federal Court
judges. Currently, the law provides for seven other judges of the Federal Court. The Yang di–Pertuan
Agong ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Like the number of judges in the Federal Court, the Yang di–Pertuan Agong may by order increase
the number of judges in the Court of Appeal.
Judges of the Court of Appeal, are usually appointed from serving judges of the High Court.
However, there is no restriction imposed in the Constitution, limiting such appointments to only
serving High Court judges. Technically, like a Federal Court judge, a person may be appointed
directly to the Court of Appeal, without first being appointed to the High Court, if he satisfies the
necessary constitutional requirements.
Article 125A(1)(aa) of the Federal Constitution provides that the President of the Court of Appeal
and a judge of the Court of Appeal and a judge of the Court of Appeal may exercise all or any of the
powers of a judge of a High Court. It is further provided in the Constitution, that the President of the
Court of Appeal may, after consulting the Chief Judge of the High Court, nominate a judge of the
High Court to sit as a judge of the Court of Appeal on a temporary basis, when 'the interests of
justice so

The Current Chief Justice Of Texas
The current Chief Justice of Texas, Nathan Hecht is a Republican from Dallas, Texas. Hecht was
first elected to the Texas Supreme Court in 1988 and then reelected to a six–year term in 1994,
2000, and 2006. He then secured his fifth six–year term on November 6, 2012. On September 10,
2013, Hecht was appointed Chief Justice by Governor Rick Perry and sworn in by retiring Chief
Justice Wallace B. Jefferson on October 1, 2013. After Jefferson left office for retirement, Nathan
Hecht became Chief Justice of Texas on December 31, 2014 and will have his term ending on
December 31, 2020. Hecht is the longest–serving Supreme Court member in Texas history. In the
past, Hecht was a partner in what is now known as the Locke Lord firm, practicing mainly in the
area of general business and commercial litigation. Our Chief Justice of our great state Texas has
had an economic and societal impact involving the growth of legal aid funding involving poverty.
Also, another headline happening not too long ago, involving Chief Justice Nathan Hecht about the
fine settling charges that he broke state campaign finance laws represents another impact he had on
our state.
The first impact Chief Justice Hecht has had on Texas involved the Texans living in poverty. Hecht
is very active in the court 's efforts to assure that Texans living below the poverty level, as well as
others with limited means, have access to basic civil legal services. Hecht and the other Texas
Supreme Court members have come up

I Am A M Chief Standing Bear's Journey For Justice
In the book "I Am a Man: Chief Standing Bear's Journey for Justice" writer Joe Starita helps the
reader understand the history of Standing Bear, who was a Ponca Native American chief. Joe Starita
was born on in Lincoln, Nebraska. Today he is a professor at the University of Nebraska in the
College of Journalism. I Am a Man was published on January 20, 2009. This paper will serve as a
review of the book to help others understand the injustice (which is the theme of the book) the
members of the Ponca Tribe had to go through.
This is a book that chronologically tells what happened during the 600–mile walk to return the body
of his son to their traditional burial ground. At that time, Bear Shield was the only son of Standing
Bear with his wife at the time, Susette. Standing Bear and his family lived in a twenty–by–forty log
house made from trees he had cut. According to one of the reservation agents, "...he was the most
forcible speaker of the whole council, and I think the most eloquent of all the chiefs."
Throughout the book, Starita also explains the efforts and challenges performed by Standing Bear in
order to reclaim his land and rights. In 1877, the Ponca Tribe did not have as much power as the
government. In Fact, the government took ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Honestly, it is one of the best books I have read in a while. One of my favorite quotes out of the
book is when Chief Standing Bear spoke in the court after being arrested and said to the judge:
"That hand is not the color of yours, but if I pierce it, I shall feel pain. If you pierce your hand, you
also feel pain. The blood that will flow from mine will be the same color as yours. I am a man. God
made us both." When I read that sentence, I asked myself how can there be so much racism, even in
the world of today, when at the end of the day we are all the same. We all bleed the same and we all
feel the same pain. I could not agree more with Chief Standing

Thomas Neighborhood Scandal
Thomas tried to make up for the scandal by being a different kind of justice. He was the only justice
who worked made an effort to know the names of everyone in the court from justices to cafeteria
workers. "Despite his friendly demeanor, the Court employees saw how devastated he was by the
confirmation battle." (Tobin 42) Thomas was like Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the fact that he defaulted
to being silent. He rarely spoke in oral argument. The rare occasion when he did speak he spoke his
extreme views "Thomas was engaged in a lonely, often solo, effort to restore the Constitution in
Exile, the world of the Supreme Court precedent before 1937." (Tobin 117) Because of Thomas's
extreme views, Chief Justice Rehnquist rarely assigned the majority

FDR And Chief Justice Hughes Essay
During the early 1900's, the United States saw the appearance of many important political figures.
During this time, there were also many individuals who would have historical importance because
of the actions they took and the legacy that their achievements gave to the United States. In his book
"FDR and Chief Justice Hughes" James F. Simon discussed extensively two important figures of the
early 1900's, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes. James
F. Simon extensively discussed the lives of both men, discussing how their lives aided in shaping the
men into future political figures of great renown. In his book, James F. Simon argued that FDR and
Chief Justice Hughes were very much alike and their decisions helped to shape the United States. In
his book, Simon discussed various aspects of the lives of Franklin Roosevelt and of Charles Evans
Hughes. He discussed both men's family histories, their educational histories, the important
decisions that they made and their importance on history. To begin, Simon has compared and
contrasted the family histories of FDR and Hughes extensively in the first few chapters of his book.
Hughes was the son of Welsh immigrant David Charles Hughes (Pg. 9) who upon moving to the
United States, in the 1850's, worked as a reverend in a parish later marrying Mary ... Show more
Probably the greatest difference between both Hughes and Roosevelt was their stance to formal
education. Where as Hughes graduated at the top of his class in Law school, Roosevelt was not a
match for Hughes's intellect. Roosevelt was described by Reverend Peabody as "a quiet, satisfactory
boy of more than ordinary intelligence" (Pg. 62), Simons stated that Roosevelt could never be
compared to his future adversaries, Chief Justice Hughes, intellectual

The Virtue Of Donald Trump: Chief Justice
It came as a shock to many of us. "Why must this country be so full of mindless, willfully ignorant
hicks?!" I cried. This was my initial reaction when the fate of this nation was handed to the
endlessly moronic and hypocritical business man turned politician, whose parents bestowed upon
him the oh so eloquent name of Donald Trump. The grating voice of that rich boy neo fascist
screeched out of the T.V. "––and will do to the best of my ability" read the chief justice John Roberts
Jr.
"And will do to the best of my ability" repeated the promised adversary of individuality and
equality.
"Preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States" the chief justice continued.
"Preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States" mimicked Mr. Trump. ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
"So help me God" finished Trump in a nasty, overconfident voice, with a foul sneer placed fixedly
on the frontispiece of his head.
The camera flashes from countless journalist started up like fireworks on the 4th of July, all
documenting the moment in which the United States of America became even more of a joke to the
rest of mankind. The manic crowd of Trump supporters began cheering wildly, as "The President's
Own" started playing the national anthem. Unsurprisingly, the attending audience was
overwhelmingly caucasian, as it you would have to be either insane, inane or a combination of the
two in order to be a minority in support of this sworn neo

Chief Justice Charles Evan Hughes
Chief Justice Charles Evan Hughes states that "learning is not [liberal education's] aim so much as
intelligence served by learning." I propose this statement can be broken down into two parts, one
being the aim of liberal education is not learning and the other being human intelligence is in fact
served by learning. I also find this statement to be strongly compatible with my ideology towards
the college education system in America. First, I believe the existence of a difference between
knowledge and intelligence should be acknowledged. I could insert a definition of both terms from
Merriam– Webster's Dictionary here, that would be exercising my knowledge, simply repeating
facts I have gathered. However, I will go more in depth, by proving relationships between different
facets of education exist in order to apply what I've learned, what I know, and demonstrate my
intelligence. As ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This is because his theory of learning serving intelligence coincides with my own thought that the
point of an education is to prepare me for a career. The information I will learn at Baylor will
translate into intelligence I have over my chosen field, thus increasing the importance of a liberal
education now. As seen in my own high school, a liberal education is not as prevalent but instead the
presence of a standardized learning system is overpowering to the students including myself. This
system doesn't prepare for the complexity of the real world thus, further emphasizing the importance
of a liberal education. Therefore, not only is Chief Justice Hughes' theory on the goals of a proper
liberal education incredibly insightful but also it is incredibly relevant as I prepare to receive an
education at Baylor University. So now the only question left is, how can I personally influence the
power of learning towards heightening my

Argumentative Essay On Chief Justice
It came as a shock to me. "Why must this country be so full of mindless, willfully ignorant hicks?!"
I cried. This was my initial reaction when the fate of this nation was handed to the endlessly
moronic and hypocritical business man turned politician, whose parents bestowed upon him the oh
so eloquent name of Donald Trump. The grating voice of that rich boy neo fascist screeched out of
the T.V. "––and will do to the best of my ability" read the chief justice John Roberts Jr.
"And will do to the best of my ability" repeated the promised adversary of individuality and
equality.
"Preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States" the chief justice continued.
"Preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States" mimicked Mr. Trump.
"So help me God" concluded the chief ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The camera flashes from countless journalist took off like fireworks on the 4th of July, all
documenting the moment in which the United States of America became even more of a joke to the
rest of mankind. The manic crowd of Trump supporters began cheering wildly, as "The President's
Own" started playing the national anthem. Unsurprisingly, the attending audience was
overwhelmingly caucasian, as you would need to be either insane, inane or a combination of the two
in order to be a minority in support of this unfeeling klansman.
I turned off the T.V. set, and threw the remote at my couch. It was practically unbelievable. I flopped
down onto the cushioned surface of the sofa, sighed and tried to calm myself down. It seems that
whenever something upsets me I tend to obsess over it, trying to find a solution or some sort of
conclusion, which in situations such as these, often ends in frustration. Usually after an amount of
time, I let things like this go because they're usually fairly impotent relative to the grand scheme of

Essay about Chief Justice Taney and Slavery
The Art of Avoidance; Chief Justice Taney and the Question of Slavery
"Their present decision is equivalent to a repeal of law and the making of law. This is not
adjudication, it is mere usurpation. It is the substitution of mere arbitrary will in the place of the
solemn and responsible functions of an impartial judicature."[1]
The 1857 Dred Scott decision proved that Chief Justice Roger Taney's sadistic racism could be
eclipsed only by his unbounded arrogance. Using outright lies regarding the intentions of the
Framers, he temporarily sacrificed the entire African race, and directed the Supreme Court to move
in and illegitimate and supercede the powers vested to Congress by the Constitution. Dred ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Scott's assertion was that he had become a free black as a result of his residency in Illinois, and as
such he could legally sue for his freedom in the state of Missouri after his owner, John Sandford,
"laid his hands upon said plaintiff, Harriet, Eliza and Lizzie, and imprisoned them, doing in this
respect, however, no more than what he might lawfully do if they were of right his slaves at such
times".[3] Scott sought redress in the federal courts as a citizen of the United States, not as an
abused slave, an important distinction.
According to the Constitution, only a citizen, as defined by the aforementioned document, could
seek an audience with the federal court, but a slave was not considered a citizen, but property. Yet in
an almost complete contradiction to himself on over question of the term citizen, Taney stated,
"Undoubtedly, a person may be a citizen, that is, a member of the community who form the
sovereignty, although he exercises no share of the political power, and is incapacitated from holding
particular office.",[4] citing the limited status of minors and women. If having no political voice, no
ability to hold power, or property, and living a marginalized existence were consistent with the
definition of citizen, as was held and put forth by the framers of the

John Marshall: The Greatest Chief Justice In The Supreme...
John Marshall, considered by many to be the greatest Chief Justice in the Supreme Court, has
copious achievements under his name. The ones that gave him the most fame were his involvement
with establishing the power of the court and placing it equal among the executive and legislative
branch, his important decisions in court cases that strengthened federal power, and instituting
judicial review as a national power given to the judicial branch. However, these are not the only
things John Marshall should be known for during his lifespan. Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in
1755, John Marshall would grow up to be a teenage boy inspired by George Washington to serve in
many important events for the independence of the nation. Starting from joining the revolutionary
war at the age of twenty as a lieutenant, to later being appointed by the man who inspired him,
George Washington, to be the chief legal officer at Valley Forge (A&E networks). After this
however, he took a furlough to visit his father and then met his future wife, and soon after in 1780 ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The first "landmark" decision he made in his new position of Chief Justice was in the court case of
Marbury v. Madison in 1803 (Ushistory.org). The case involved Madison Marbury one of the
"Midnight Judges" appointed by President Adams, except he never recieved his papers for when
Jefferson took over as president his Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to give the
commision because he did not want another federalist judge (Ushistory.org). The case ended with
establishing the principle of judicial review, which means that the Supreme Court can declare laws
of unconstitutional. This case greatly increased the power of the Judicial Branch and showcased the
Federalist views of John Marshall's

The Life and Work of Carl Warren
Carl Warren was appointed the 14th Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1953.' Warren was
appointed to take the place of the current Chief Justice Fred Vinson who died suddenly of a heart
attack.' So, Warren immediately began his term in the Supreme Court and did not get Senate
approval with March 1, 1954 on a simple voice vote of the full Senate without any of the typical
confirmation hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee,' This approval process was very
noncontroversial and without any of the detailed reviews that a Supreme Court appointment would
typically face.4 Warren became a very controversial Supreme Court Justice after the Senate did little
to review how he might act as a Supreme Court Justice. This may have changed how much review
future Supreme Court appointments would get from the Senate. Carl Warren was an average student
in college with no experience as a judge before he became a very active leader of the Supreme
Court, making many controversial decisions for the times.' His leadership and decisions still impact
our lives today. He was appointed by President Eisenhower mostly because Eisenhower thought
Warren was a middle of the road Republican (like Eisenhower) and because Warren was a Catholic'
Eisenhower wanted to appeal to the Northeastern USA catholic voters.' Also, during the Republican
Party presidential nominating convention of 1952, Warren, then the Governor of California and a
potential rival to Eisenhower for the office of President of

Tennessee Chief Justice Of The United States
Earl Warren was a politician and eventually a renown jurist. He served as the 30th Governor of
California and the 14th Chief Justice of the U.S. As the 14th Chief Justice, he was in charge of the
Warren Court, now known as one of the most liberal courts in the history of the U.S. Warren led
landmark decisions like Brown v. Board of Education, Gideon v. Wainwright, Reynolds v. Sims, and
Miranda v. Arizona that strengthened the power of the judicial branch to be in par with the other two
branches. Warren and his court desegregated public schools and other public sectors, defended the
rights of the accused, banned in–school prayers, and instated 'one man–one vote' rule in voting
districts. Warren's dedication in desegregation showed how he succeeded in keeping all segregation
cases unanimous. Warren, appointed by Lyndon B. Johnson, headed a panel known as the Warren
Commission to investigate President Kennedy's assassination. Furthermore, Warren, during his time
in Court, nationalized the Bill of Rights to all states. Moreover, Warren and his Court in the
landmark case of Griswold v. Connecticut, established and protected the right to privacy.
George Gallup was a pioneer in survey sampling techniques and founded Gallup Inc., known for the
Gallup Poll. The Gallup Poll is a sector of the company that focuses on conducting public opinion
polls. Gallup and his new company gained recognition in 1936 when he correctly predicted that
Franklin D. Roosevelt would beat Alf Landon in the

I Am A Man Chief Standing Bear's Journey For Justice
"I Am a Man: Chief Standing Bear's Journey for Justice," by Joe Sarita is a detailed and historical
account of Chief Standing Bear's life (1829–1908) and how he fought the United States Government
to recognized him and his people and equal citizens under the law.
The founding father of the United States of America were wise, they orchestrated a system of checks
and balances that bestowed inalienable rights and freedoms to individual citizens and prevented any
one branch of government from becoming too powerful. "I AM A MAN" is a story of one man's
struggle from unlawful detention, oppression and betrayal that resonated through the corridors of
justice. This story is beautifully told, historically accurate and culminates into an epic tale of hope
and freedom for ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
While in detention at Fort Omaha news about the plight of the Ponca people fell on sympathetic
ears. On April 8, 1879, two eminent attorneys volunteered their services to the Chief Standing Bear
and offered to help him fight for his freedom. The attorneys used the Suspension Clause of the
United States Constitution, which demands, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be
suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." A writ of
Habeas Corpus was filed in District Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska. The stars
seemed to align in favor of Standing Bear's plea for freedom and justice and many rallied to his plea.
The story of Ponca people's plight was picked up published by East Coast newspapers and fanned
the flames of public opinion in favor of Sanding Bear's cause.
Standing Bear got his day in court. United States ex rel. Standing Bear v. Crook. The date was May
12, 1879 the following direct quote from the book summarizes the rights and freedoms that Standing
Bear won for his

Earl Warren Served As Chief Justice
Earl Warren served as Chief Justice in the the Supreme Court replacing Fred M. Vinson as Chief
Justice after his death in 1953. In the period from 1961 to 1969, Warren Court presided over the
criminal justice system in the United States, using the 4th and 14th Amendment to extend
constitutional protections to all courts in every State. This is known as the "nationalization" of the
Bill of Rights. In these years, cases pertaining to the right to legal counsel, confessions, searches,
and the treatment of juvenile criminals all happen during. The Warren Court 's modification in the
criminal justice system began with the case of Mapp v. Ohio, the first of several important cases in
which it reassess the role of the 14th Amendment as it applied to State judicial systems. Mapp v.
Ohio (1961) was a case in criminal procedures where as the United States Supreme Court came to
the conclusion that the evidence confiscated in the case of Dollree Mapp was in violation of the
Fourth Amendment; which protects her against unreasonable searches and seizures in the state of
Ohio. According to The Supreme Court case No. 367 U.S 643 (U.S 1961), Dollree Mapp resided in
Cleveland, Ohio with her small daughter. On May 23rd 1957, police received an anonymous tip by
phone that a man accused of suspicious acts was hiding out in the home of Mapp. The alleged man
was wanted for questioning in connection with a recent bombing and that there was a large amount
of paraphernalia being hidden in the

The Justice System: The US Court System
There is no doubt that America's history in the justice system has been a complete rollercoaster. The
U.S. court system, has developed major changes implementing the law due to impermanentvalues
and morals; changes in which shape the system we enforce today. Although the outcome always
outway the process of how laws come into place, it is important to press knowledge into newer
generations about what and who is responsible for these drastic changes. Sadly, many key leaders
and events seem to be forgotten when there is no memorial or monument to reflect their impact
within the justice system. Memorializing keyleaders and events is important in helping not only
their impact stay alive, but shape the direction the justice system will go in the ... Show more
Hodges specifically, made a huge impact on the public, in which it was the legalization of gay
marriage. Legalizing gay marriage is a big deal to the public due to the fact that homosexuality have
been experiencing the most backlash in society. In an article "People of the Year," Mark stern
discuss the efforts on how the decision came about. He states that many people argued that the idea
of "being gay" is "an identity, one which finds protection under the Constitution" (Stern 46). This
statement is relevant when discussing the social disadvantages homosexuals have encountered.
Technically, homosexuality is in fact an "identity" and therefore qualified for rights under the
constution. This is a great example of what Warren's idea of protecting the rights of the people
against anyone who threatens them, including government. Cases similar to Obergefell vs. Hodges
each experience the same fights concerning the rights and aspirations for all

My Own Boswell : Memoirs Of M. Hidayatullaha
Book Review
MY OWN BOSWELL: MEMOIRS OF M. HIDAYATULLAHA by M. Hidayatullah.
ISBN: 978–81–7534–260–6
Publication year 2011
Pages: 304
Price Rs. 295/–
Published By Universal Law Publishing Company Private Limited
G.T. Karnal Road, New Delhi– 110033, India
Reviewed by Prabhansu Gupta* The MY OWN BOSWELL : MEMOIRS OF M.
HIDAYATULLAHA is the autobiography of an eminent Indian lawyer M. Hidayatullah who has
won most of the prizes available to one of his profession in India. The title, he explains in the
preface, was taken from the subtitle of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes ' Aristocrat of the Breakfast
Table: Every man his own Boswell. The author was born on 17 December ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
In the given interval he wrote several books and spent some time in the United States. The latter
visit resulted in a book known as, U.S.A. and India. As there indicated, he was in residence for a
week at Southern Illinois University School of Law and gave several lectures, one of which was
published in the Southern Illinois University Law Journal. At the age of forty he was appointed by
the Crown to be a judge of the High Court at Nagpur where he served for ten years. In the second
year of that service he entered into a very successful inter–religious marriage to Pushpa Shah, and
during the last two years he served as Chief Justice. Then, in 1956, the State of Madya Pradesh was
recognized and his court was moved to Jabalpur. Chapter 19 discusses some of the problems arising
from the reorganization and includes some sharp criticism of the politics involved. It also talks about
author's humour by specifying a difficulty arose in finding housing for the clerical staff. The district
administration found accommodations in a large house where some families could be stationed, but
there were complaints about the neighbourhood. The author and his two senior judges inspected the
locale and found that the house was "in the red–light district. One of them suggested that the
bachelors ' dormitory might be shifted there, "to the horror" of another of the judges. Alternative
arrangements, of

Supreme Court History Essay

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Ann Johnson

More from Ann Johnson (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Supreme Court History Essay