John G. Roberts

John G. Roberts
The Chief Justice of The United States is John G. Roberts. Roberts grew up a very intelligent and
well respected young man with a loving family and a hardworking attitude. He has had a long and
successful career on his journey to becoming the Chief Justice, with much experience and
intelligence in the Justice Department. He has made some very big decisions and will most likely
have many more to come.
John G. Roberts Jr. was born on January 27, 1955. Although he was born in Buffalo, New York, him
and his family moved to Long Beach, Indiana when he was only 4 years old in 1959. John was one
of four children growing up, but he was the only son. He had 3 sisters by the name of Kathy, Peggy,
and Barbara. In high school, John partook in many after ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
One of them is the case of Kansas V. Marsh. Michael Lee Marsh was proven guilty and convicted of
a gruesome murder of a mother and her daughter. During sentencing, the jury decided the maximum
sentence, which was the death penalty; therefore Marsh was sentenced to death. After the
sentencing, the Kansas Supreme Court overturned the sentence and said it was unconstitutional.
Whenever the Supreme Court took control, it upheld the original sentence and stated, "The court
upheld a Kansas law that said the death penalty is imposed when the jury decides mitigating and
aggravating evidence is of equal value." Another big case is the one of Graham V. Florida, which
involved 16–year–old Terrence Graham who was convicted of armed burglary and attempted armed
robbery. He served a one–year sentence and was let out, then later convicted of armed home robbery
and sentenced to life without the chance of parole. Whenever the case got to the Supreme Court, it
ruled that juveniles could not be sentenced to life without the chance of parole unless it was a
homicidal crime. In Mcdonald V. Chicago, Otis Mcdonald wanted to purchase a handgun for self–
protection, but was denied access to purchase a handgun because of state laws. After filing a suit
saying it was against his Second Amendment rights, the Supreme Court overturned the decision
saying the amendment is, "fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Roe V. Wade Pros And Cons
In January of 1972, the Supreme Court made the decision to legalize abortion in the first trimester of
a pregnancy. This new decision extended the constitutional right of privacy to a woman's right to her
body. Prior to this new law, back alley illegal abortions were on the rise and were responsible for
one–sixth of all pregnancy and childbirth deaths (Planned Parenthood). After abortions became
legal, safe clinics were created and women are able to safely receive the procedures. However, the
debate of overturning the court decision has been widely discussed with a new year and new
president. Pro–life conservatives and pro–choice liberals, both argue whether or not a woman should
have access to abortions. The Supreme Court should not overturn ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Many of these states have created harder restrictions for the process of receiving an abortion. States
have tried to change the law that, "requires women to receive state–mandated counseling and an
ultrasound at least 18 hours before the procedure, forcing women to make two separate trips to the
clinic. It also prohibits women from choosing abortion if the fetus is diagnosed with a genetic
anomaly, and mandates that fetal tissue be cremated or buried" (Huffington Post). These restrictions
not only complicate the process of an abortion but also painfully affects the women trying to obtain
them in these states. Many clinics have been forced to shut down in conservative states, forcing
many women to travel far to undergo the procedures. With harder restrictions the government
receives more control over a woman's body which again, violates the fourth amendment. In order to
protect the current ruling of Roe v Wade, the states and federal governments must continue to block
these pending laws and rule them

Roe Vs Wade Case Study
The Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision on January 22, 1973 changed things and made abortion
legal worldwide. Jane Rose, an unmarried who wanted to have an abortion, filed the case. During
this time almost all states outlawed abortion, unless it was to save a woman's life or for reasons such
as maintaining the woman's health. Therefore, the court struck down the law and the decision was
handed down. Roe thought these laws were unconstitutional. This reached the Supreme Court,
which said the government couldn't interfere with personal decisions. People against abortion were
outraged and urged the lawmakers to pass laws banning abortion. In 1992, due to changes in the
Supreme Court, it was to believe that Roe might be overturned, because it ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Although abortion is not stated in the bible, the teaching of it is in there by saying how human life is
sacred and humans were created in the image of God. Genesis 1:27 states, "God created man in his
image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them." The Bible also
teaches that children are a blessing. Psalm 127: 3 states, "Truly children are a gift from the Lord; the
fruit of the woman is a reward." God writes, "Thou shalt not kill" in several different places in the
bible. These quotes from the Bible back the argument that abortion is wrong. Not only does the
Bible show evidence of abortion being wrong, but also abortion causes physical complications to the
woman and can affect her ability of future pregnancies. The Centers for Disease Control states that
"CDC have received reports of the deaths of 386 women from legal abortion between 1973, when
abortion was legalized nationwide, and 2004." A team in New Zealand analyzed data during a 25–
year period and found that abortion in young women has risks of depression, anxiety, suicidal
behaviors, and alcohol dependence. The woman's health is a main factor when it comes to abortion.
Rape also plays a big factor in why woman should not have an abortion. I believe that even if a
woman is raped, the child still deserves the right to life. The woman has undergone a terrible
trauma, but abortion cannot un–rape the woman. To kill the innocent child is

Gay Rights Essay
The legalization of same–sex marriage was a long wait for L.G.B.T citizens, once the Supreme
Court ruled and promised that constitution would protect there rights to get married. This decision
who hard to make because of the constant debating over whether they should get the chance to get
married to someone of the same–sex. The constant debating and protesting put this cause for gay
rights at the highest level for many years for same–sex marriage. Anthony M. Kennedy made a
decision for same–sex couples that went down in history " No union is more profound than
marriage, for it embodies the highest level of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family. In
forming a marital union, two people become something greater than one they were."
Same–sex marriage went against the fast–moving changes in the public opinion, which most of
Americans now approve the unions. The four justices that support Justice Kennedy's has a greater
number of opinions than those hold to the traditional values attitudes toward same–sex.
The members of the justices that had the traditional values and attitudes towards L.G.B.T decided to
file another argument against same–sex marriage as well, which those who we're against them
showed the same–sex couples a range of different tones from dismay to bitter scorn.
Chief Justice The legalization of same–sex marriage was a long wait for L.G.B.T citizens, once the
Supreme Court ruled and promised that constitution would protect there rights to get married.

1. Who are the people on the Supreme Court? To learn more...
1. Who are the people on the Supreme Court? To learn more about them, go to the Web site for the
Oyez Project at www.oyez.org and select two Supreme Court justices.
The two Justics on the Supreme Court are John G. Roberts, Jr. and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. John G.
Roberts, Jr. was appointed on 29 September 2005 by president bush at an age of 50. He is a
republican, his confirmation vote was by voice and his ideologies are conservative. On the other
hand, President Bill Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg on 5 August 1993 at an age of 60. She
is a democrat and her ideology is liberal although she would vote with conservatives when
necessary. Her confirmation vote was decisive since it was by landslide.
While the chief justice John Roberts, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In my opinion, the American society is a diverse one consisting of people of diverse race, ethnicity
and religion; it is important that in the justice system diversity exist along the same line to reflect the
aspirations of the entire population. If this does not happen, the unrepresented people will feel
discriminated and this might ferment discontent. This court as it is now reflects a good measure of
diversity because it has both male and female. There are judges of different racial backgrounds such
as white and blacks. However, more need to be done on gender and race since the court is still
largely men jungle and white.
2. Review and discuss one of the latest stories from oyez today
The story being discussed here is baseball and the supreme court: remembering flood v Kuhn. This
is a story, which has remained in the memory of the judiciary for such a long time because of the
absurdity of the decision made by the court at the time. This was the third time the matter was
coming up in the court and the previous positions were upheld. It was decided that baseball did not
fall under any federal antitrust and if it was to fall in any, it was congress and not the court. Courts
are made to dispense justice and as such, their decisions should reflect justice. This decision was
repugnant to justice but the judges seemed to have nothing they could do to rescue the situation. It is

Norman Abortion Poverty
Abortion, Poverty, and Rights Abortion was legalized in the United States of America on January
22, 1973 with the help of Roe v. Wade, giving women the freedom of choice and with the help of
privacy to seek the termination of an unwanted pregnancy. Before this life changing court case,
abortion was illegal in the United States of America. It was during the 1850s, that the heads of the
American Medical Association (AMA) that made abortions illegal in the first place to assert their
authority as the head doctors of the United States (Reagan 2012). For over one hundred and twenty
years, American women did not have any access to a safe abortion unless she can prove in front of a
board of male doctors that she will face serious health ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
It leaves the risk or either looking for an illegal abortion or having to raise a child with difficulties
surrounding you. Women denied abortions are more likely to go on welfare assistance, starting or
continuing the cycle of poverty. Research revealed that one of the main reasons women seek out for
abortions in the first place was for monetary reasons. Not every woman like Sarah has the means to
travel to a place to get a legal abortion and not everyone can afford an abortion. Most women
seeking are unemployed, on public assistance, or making below the poverty line (Sankin, 2012).
Having this rejection of an abortion would leave women unable to have an abortion with the choice
of either adoption, done by eleven percent of women, raising another child digging deeper into debt,
or having to rely on the government for more monetary assistance. Why would the government deny
someone the right to have an abortion if not having the child would save America the extra of not
having to take care of another? Not regarding the one who wants to keep his or her pregnancy in the
first place, why force a woman to raise a child she does not want? Unless the government feels that
if they are providing welfare, it gives them a reason to intervene into personal

Masterpiece Cakesham Case
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Religion, whether we like it or not, influences many of our decisions as humans even without us
even knowing. Religion, for those who have grown up knowing it, or are believers in a religion,
have been taught to act and respond in specific ways to scenarios of all types. Whereas those who
are not affiliated religiously are influenced by decisions on matters of morality as well as law, which
has basis in religion. The case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is one
surrounded by that of religiously based decisions and intentions from both religious Americans and
non–religious Americans. The cases origin dates to 2012, previous to the 2015 Supreme Court ruling
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
With such a relevant case to current times and a necessary one to define the future of interactions
between businesses and citizens of all races and sexual orientations, clarification can only help the
future of these types of interactions. The court will most likely respond with a 5–4 decision in favor
of Masterpiece Cakeshop. As with the conservative justices, most will likely support that of
Masterpiece Cakeshop. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Samuel Alito, and the
newly appointed Associate Justice Neil Goursch would most likely choose to support the freedom of
religion and the right to refuse service, most likely quoting Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, as they
tend to stay on the conservative side of the argument. Whereas Associate Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsberg, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, and Associate Justice
Sonia Sotomayor would most likely stick with the argument that this is discrimination of gay
Americans, most likely quoting Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon
v. Smith during the proceedings. Chief Justice John G. Roberts would most likely maintain that
Masterpiece Cakeshop was not in the wrong. The real decision on whether or not Mr. Phillips was
right in refusing to produce a wedding cake for the couple would come down to Anthony M.
Kennedy. As Kennedy often takes the position of swing vote in the Supreme Court it is

Fred Phelps Is The Leader Of The Westboro Baptist Church
Name and Citation: Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. ___ (2011) Facts: Fred Phelps is the leader of the
Westboro Baptist Church which is considered to be extremist. Phelps and his followers believe that
God punishes those who are tolerant of homosexuality. Since, the United States has a high tolerance
of homosexuality, they believe that the United States is damned. The military also has recently
become more accepting of homosexuals in their ranks, thus the Westboro Baptist Church pickets
many military funerals. Albert Snyder's son, Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, was killed in a
Humvee accident on March 3, 2006. Phelps heard about Matthew Snyder's funeral and decided to
head to Maryland with six other followers to picket. The Westboro Baptist Church picketed Lance
Corporal Snyder's funeral with signs that displayed sayings such as: "God Hates the USA/Thank
God for 9/11," "Thank God for IEDs," and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers." Before the members of
the church arrived, they contacted local authorities to let them know about their protest. They staged
themselves on public land that was parallel to a street, all the while agreeing and obeying that police
officer's orders. They showed their signs for about thirty minutes before the beginning of the funeral.
Members of the church also sang songs and recited verses from the Bible. The picketers never
stepped foot (they were about 1,000 feet away) on the church's property (where the funeral was
held) nor did they use profanity or

The Importance Of Hate Speech And Hate Groups
The First Amendment has brought up debates over the years, which most recently have centered
around hate speech and hate groups. Congress and state governments can make no law that takes
away the freedom of speech. However, some people feel that hate speech and hate groups violate
their civil liberties. A hate group is an organization whose goals are based on the hatred of a specific
group(s) of people, and the group must have a hate based purpose. Hate speech is speech that
threatens, offends, or insults members of a group(s). All Americans have rights and liberties of their
own, and wish they are not infringed by others. Despite people believing hate groups should not
have the right to free speech if it is hate speech, the US Supreme Court has ruled that hate groups
are protected under the First Amendment. Throughout the history of the United States, many hate
groups have emerged. Today, the oldest hate group, and the most well known, is the Ku Klux Klan.
It was formed in 1865, and it soon turned into a strong, violent organization. Hundreds of other hate
groups have been organized and remain active today. Most hate groups in the United States are anti–
black, variations of the KKK, anti–Muslim, general hate, white nationalist, or "Neo–Nazi's". Hate
groups have been involved in many criminal suits, including Brandenburg v. Ohio, National
Socialist Party v. Skokie, Snyder v. Phelps, and, most recently, Matal v. Tam. All four of these cases
further the idea that hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. To begin with, the ruling in
Brandenburg v. Ohio developed an important test to decide what speech can be prohibited, which
makes this case significant. Brandenburg v. Ohio was a case in 1969 over a law in Ohio that
criminalized advocating various illegal activities that put Brandenburg, a KKK leader in prison. The
US Supreme Court took on this case and declared that Ohio's law violated the First, and Fourteenth,
Amendments. The resulting test is known as "the Brandenburg incitement test – which allows
speech to be regulated if it is directed to and likely to cause imminent violent act". Ohio's law made
the advocacy illegal, but it did not take into part whether or not the speech incited lawless

King V Burwell Case Summary
King v. Burwell (2015) is a Supreme Court case involving two parties, the petitioner David King
and the respondent Sylvia Mathews Burwell the Secretary of Health and Human Services. In a brief
background of the case according to Oyez, Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act in 2010 to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance and lower health
care costs. ACA requires each state to establish an "exchange" in which people can purchase health
care; and if a state chooses not to do so, the federal government establishes one through the
Secretary of Health and Human Services. Another condition made by the ACA requires people to
have to obtain the "minimum essential coverage" or pay a tax penalty unless it ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
On the same day that the Fourth Circuit issued its decision, a three–judge panel of the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in Halbig v. Burwell (2015), reached the
opposite conclusion, finding 2–1 that the ACA unambiguously restricts the...subsidy to insurance
purchased on Exchanges "established by the State." The D.C. Circuit's decision, however, was
vacated when that court agreed to hold an "en banc" hearing of the case before all judges of the
court in December. Meanwhile, the appellants in King v. Burwell (2015), having decided not to seek
an en banc hearing, filed a "writ of certiorari" or petition for review with the United States Supreme
Court, which was granted on November 7, 2014, despite the fact that there was technically no
disagreement between the two appellate courts on the central

United States, Missouri V. Mcneely, 569 U. S
Name and Citation of Case: United States, Missouri v. Mcneely, 569 U. S. (2013) Decision: The
Supreme Court attests. The Court noticed that its point of reference requests a case–by–case
examination when lower courts figure out if urgent conditions advocated a warrantless pursuit.
However, the State contended that exigency essentially exists in any DWI related blood test given
that blood–alcohol content quickly decreases with time, the Court found no argumentation to
embrace a per se rule. The Court concurred that essentially postponing a blood test to get a warrant
would adversely influence the supportive value of the outcomes. However, it contemplated that
when the state have sufficient time to get a warrant, the Fourth Amendment obliges it to do as such.
While getting a warrant is unrealistic, the blood testing may well honor an exigency exception.
Since the State construct its contention exclusively in light of the proposed per se rule, the Court
declined to detail the significant elements courts must weigh while investigating exigency in DWI
cases. The State Supreme Court affirmed, relying on Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, in
which this Court upheld a DWI suspect's warrantless blood test where the officer "might reasonably
have believed that he was confronted with an emergency, in which the delay necessary to obtain a
warrant, under the circumstances, threatened 'the destruction of evidence,' " id., at 770 (Missouri v.
McNeely, 2013) How the Vote

Essay on Federal Disaster Planning and Relief
This paper will discuss information on the federal disaster planning and relief program, and explain
how the program raises issues of federalism, and the pros and cons from two perspectives. Disaster
planning is the development and documenting of a plan that will allow an organization to recover
from a catastrophic event. It should include procedures that are appropriate to the function and size
of the business (Bucki, J.) As where disaster relief is the services or monies available to individuals,
families, and communities who have suffered from some form of a catastrophic disaster such as:
Floods
Hurricanes
Earthquakes
Drought
Tornadoes
Riots (New World Encyclopedia)
When these catastrophic disasters happen, an ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
& Tierney, K).
List of Catastrophic Disasters
Hurricane Katrina
Hurricane Rita
9/11
California Wildfires
Midwest Floods
How Disaster Planning and Relief Raise Issues of Federalism The American form of Federalism has
been argued as one of the main challenges to an effective response. For instance, conflicting goals
may create tension between different levels of government agencies, local authorities may be
reluctant to turn responsibilities over for dealing with the emergency to federal and state entities,
and there may be various degrees and forms of collaboration (Schneck, D. 2009). Issues with
federalism surfaced within several contexts in 2005, for instance, "The REAL ID Act, federal
requirements associated with Temporary Aid to Needy Families reauthorization, the Terri Schiavo
case, state and local government opposition to the No Child Left behind Act, and senate
confirmation hearings for Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, and the delayed and
poorly coordinated intergovernmental response to Hurricane Katrina and Rita also generated debate
in Congress, and among academics and the general public as to the appropriate federal, state, and
local roles in responding to emergencies (Schneck, D. 2009)." There has also been occasions where
issues of federalism have crossed paths in article form with emergency management and

Obergefell V. Hodges Summary
most likely kids to be bullied are gay or are perceived to be gay, and in a nationally representative
sample 1/3 of 3,500 students were bullied due to sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation.
Thereby, illustrating that even though times are changing, there are still several issues concerning
sexual orientation. Though the LGBT community has made headway, especially with the Obergefell
v. Hodges case decision, they have had to deal with a large amount disparity, much more than there
heterosexual counterparts' relative to issues of love, marriage, intimacy, and relations. Ultimately,
there are still issues facing the LGBT community, but with the ruling in the Obergefell v. Hodges
case, there is evidence of those issues, as they pertain to equality, being addressed.
Case Presentation:
Facts of the Case: Obergefell v. Hodges has been addressed several times throughout the
introduction and is not only one of the most recent victories, but also one of the most substantial in
terms of equality. This case got its start because four states (Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and
Michigan) defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, and then six cases in the
respective states challenged that definition. In Tennessee's Tanco v. Haslam, three same–sex couples
married, validly, outside of the state, and then moved to Tennessee, where their marriages were no
longer recognized due to the aforementioned definition of marriage in the state of Tennessee.
District Court Judge

Roe V. Wade Case Study
In 1973, the Supreme Court took on the case of Roe v. Wade. This Supreme Court case was based
on the right of privacy in reference to abortion. The case ruled that the U.S Constitution effectively
mandates a nationwide policy of abortion on demand. This case is one of the most criticized cases in
Supreme Court history.
The court ruled in a 7–2 vote that the right to privacy under the 14th amendment extended to a
women's decision to have an abortion. However, the right must be balanced against the state's
interest in regulation abortion. Those included protecting prenatal life and protecting women's
health. The court stated that state regulation of abortion is resolved to the third trimester of
pregnancy.
Roe believed that the person has

Decision Making Is At The Core Of The United States...
Decision–making is at the core of the United States Supreme Court. The justices are not immune to
possessing political ideologies and similarly to the American public, those ideologies impact their
lives to varying degrees. The facet of judicial politics explored in this paper is decision–making and
the impact of ideology. While it would be ideal for the Supreme Court to have zero influences other
than the constitution, it is also wishful thinking. Author Jeffrey Toobin agrees with political
scientists that the justices of the United States Supreme Court make decisions and rulings that are a
result of their ideologies and personal values. He says, "All justices have a political ideology as well
as a legal philosophy––– that's a big reason presidents choose them in the first place." Perhaps the
most astute opinion on this matter comes from Justice Sonia Sotomayor: "The aspiration to
impartiality is just that––– it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences
making different choices than others. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see"
Toobin's own statements often reflect the argument that he attempts to prove about the justices being
in line with the attitudinal model. He writes, "The justices built their judicial philosophies on the
foundation of their prior lives." The question is, to what extent do justices allow their personal
values and experiences to impact their court duties? The idea that the justices are

Roe Vs Rhode Abortion
Forty–five years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States infamously declared in the case Roe v.
Wade that abortion was a women's right for the "entirety of the pregnancy."1 This case also limited
the states' ability to regulate abortions performed in the three trimesters of pregnancy. Since this
decision, over 60 million unborn children have been killed by abortion.2 By contrast, 1.1 million
soldiers have died in all the U.S. wars combined.3 In a country founded upon the principles of life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, abortion is one of the greatest downfalls of those principles. It
must be eliminated.
In his book Abortion: A Rational Look at an Emotional Issue, Dr. Robert Sproul declares, "At the
heart of the abortion issue ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Numerous states are also passing an Ultrasound bill, adding a paragraph to the already existing
Woman's Right to Know legislature requiring the physician to offer the woman the chance to see her
ultrasound before the abortion. Oddly, though this bill frequently receives bipartisan support, some
who claim to be 'pro–choice' object to the ultrasound bill, maintaining that it "interferes with the
doctor–patient relationship, legislating the private conversations that occur about a legal medical
procedure."13 However, many women have rejected this excuse, returning that they asked to see
their abortion and were denied. These women often say that they would have kept their unborn child
had they seen the ultrasound as requested.14 The Women's Right to Know bill and its additional
Ultrasound bill protect the rights of the women, frequently initiating a change of heart without
directly prohibiting the

Similarities Between Judicial Activism And Strict...
The Supreme Court is made up of many justices that believe in two different judicial philosophies.
These two philosophies are that of judicial activism and strict constructionism. These philosophies
differ quite a bit from one another, but they both work toward the same main goal. Both
philosophies play a part in court cases when it comes to deciding on a final ruling. Judicial activism
is a judicial philosophy that states that a court has the right to, and should go beyond what is stated
in the Constitution about an issue that is being brought up and look towards "broader" suggestions
of the impending decision on said issue. Basically, the court "strikes down a law and then makes a
statement that [may] change a law or policy in a significant ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
In this case the Supreme Court determined that Texas law criminalizing, or essentially trying to
outlaw abortion was unconstitutional. Strict Constructionism, on the other hand, is a distinct legal
philosophy that limits or controls some judicial interpretation. A judge who uses strict
constructionism, "may reject the use of legislative history when constructing law because whatever
a particular legislator may have said while on the floor of congress does not necessarily reflect what
was put into law (Stankiewicz)". Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court is probably one of the
most we'll know users of strict constructionism. In essence, he believes that the Constitution should
only ever be interpreted the way it was written never any different. Scalia also believes that the
Constitution should not be susceptible to any form of "updating" by any court. In 2015 the Supreme
Court ruled on a case about same–sex marriage, Obergfell v. Hodges. The final ruling (holding) of
the case, stated by SCOTUSBlog, the fourteenth amendment requires a state to license a marriage
between two people of the same–sex and also to recognize a marriage between two people of the
same–sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed

The Legacy Of The Capitol
For eight years, it has been my honor to serve as your President. The first decade of this new century
has been a period of consequence–a time set apart. Tonight, with a thankful heart, I have asked for a
final opportunity to share some thoughts on the journey that we have traveled together, and the
future of our nation.
Five days from now, the world will witness the vitality of American democracy. In a tradition dating
back to our founding, the presidency will pass to a successor chosen by you, the American people.
Standing on the steps of the Capitol will be a man whose history reflects the enduring promise of
our land. This is a moment of hope and pride for our whole nation. And I join all Americans in
offering best wishes to ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Every morning, I received a briefing on the threats to our nation. I vowed to do everything in my
power to keep us safe.
Over the past seven years, a new Department of Homeland Security has been created. The military,
the intelligence community, and the FBI have been transformed. Our nation is equipped with new
tools to monitor the terrorists ' movements, freeze their finances, and break up their plots. And with
strong allies at our side, we have taken the fight to the terrorists and those who support them.
Afghanistan has gone from a nation where the Taliban harbored al–Qaeda and stoned women in the
streets to a young democracy that is fighting terror and encouraging girls to go to school. Iraq has
gone from a brutal dictatorship and a sworn enemy of America to an Arab democracy at the heart of
the Middle East and a friend of the United States.
There is legitimate debate about many of these decisions. But there can be little debate about the
results. America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil. This is
a tribute to those who toil night and day to keep us safe–law enforcement officers, intelligence
analysts, homeland security and diplomatic personnel, and the men and women of the United States
Armed Forces.
Our nation is blessed to have citizens who volunteer to defend us in this time of danger. I have
cherished meeting these selfless patriots and their families. And America owes you a debt of
gratitude. And to all our men and

Roe V. Wade Case Study
The 1973 Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court case was a major court case that left an effect on American
government. In 1971, a woman by the name Norma Mc. Corvey who was a single mother who
stayed in taxes where abortion was prohibited. She was outraged by the state's decision not allowing
her to have an abortion in the state. So Norma Mc. Corvey decided to sue the state of Texas claiming
that her constitutional rights were being taking away from her. The court ruled in the favor of Norma
but the verdict was not strong enough to change the minds of the abortion doctors. After two years
of court hearings and evidences, the court over turned the law by a 7–2 vote that implied no state
could restrict abortions during the first three months of pregnancy. Rape, financial, instability, and
the mother's health are reason abortion should remain legal.
One reason abortion should remain legal is because of rape. Rape is the most targeted crime
amongst women. Rape is defined as sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other
forms of sexual penetration against someone without their consent. National rape related pregnancy
rate is at ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
If you are pregnant and still in high school, college, or unemployed the thought of having a child is
scary. Thoughts of how you would be able to manage your pregnancy and still take care of your
responsibilities will go through your head. No child should be brought into this world and not be
taking care of. A federal study has been found that 22,000 babies after left in a hospital every year
because parents are unable to take care of them. "A survey taken in September of 2005 on peer–
reviewed journal Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health asking women why they would
have an abortion studies found that 73% of participants said they could not afford to have a baby,
and 38% claimed giving birth would interfere with their education and career

Rhetorical Analysis Of Pope Francis
I will be analyzing the speech of Pope Francis to a Joint Session of Congress from September of
2015 in Washington, D.C. for my final rhetorical analysis. This speech is important because it
addresses societal issues in the United States and the whole world such as poverty, religion, war, the
environment, immigration, and gun laws. The pope not only addresses the issues, but also
acknowledges many of the marvelous features of America. In this paper, I will provide a summary
of research I found on the context of the speech, the speaker, the audience, and the effects the speech
had on society. Pope Francis is the present day spiritual leader of the Catholic Church, also known
as the bishop of Rome or pontiff. He is the very first pope from Latin American, Argentina
specifically, and is now known as the first pope ever that has addressed Congress. According to the
guardian.com, Pope Francis, "electrified Congress with a call for action on climate change,
immigration, poverty and capital punishment, laying down a challenge for the United States to
transcend division and rediscover its ideals" (Carroll 1). He addressed these issues and drew a great
interest from the audience for fifty–one minutes in the chamber of the House of Representatives.
The audience of the speech consisted of a large number of lawmakers, aides, and invited guests. The
New York Times, referenced some of the people that attended: "Sitting behind Francis were Vice
President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and House Speaker John A. Boehner, both Catholics. Flanking the
aisle at the front were Secretary of State John Kerry and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and not
far behind them was Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, all Catholics" (Baker, Yardley 17).
Others in the audience included three other Supreme Court associate justices, Justice Anthony
Kennedy, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, other cabinet members,
senators, House members, presidential candidates, a few four–star generals, priests, nuns, and
bishops. According to the New York Times, the lawmakers interrupted Pope Francis about thirty
times applauding him, causing the speech to run fifty–one minutes when originally scheduled for
thirty. *****add

Case Study : Public Participation And Mccutcheon
Public Participation and McCutcheon The main idea of this paper is to establish an assimilation of
the McCutcheon case. The first goal is to review and summarize the history of the McCutcheon
case. The second purpose will be, summing up the majority and minority point of views of this case.
This suggests explaining why the chosen argument shows logical and legitimate influence. The third
aim focuses on discussing whether the McCutcheon decision improves or demotivates the ability of
the public to be engaged purposely in the analysis stage of public policy, in addition to defending the
potential rationale. The ultimate goal of this essay will lead to substantive information through using
academic resources, peer–reviewed journals, and current periodicals to reinforce the outcomes of the
proposal. History of McCutcheon v. FEC The background of the McCutcheon v. FEC case dates
back to 1971 when the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 was implemented. This Act
replaced prior federal campaign finance laws and required campaign committees to disclose funding
that was contributed and spent (Nelson, Adams, Groat, Kempema, & Vaughn, n.d.). This act was
later amended in 1974 imposing limits on how much any single campaign could receive or spend on
their mission. These limits were implemented due to the violations revealed in the Watergate
scandal. The 1974 amendment also enacted the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The FEC was
recognized; "...as an independent agency to assume the administrative functions previously divided
between congressional officers and the General Accounting Office" (Nelson, et. al, n.d., para. 2).
Just two years later, in 1976, there was a Supreme Court ruling which stated that establishing set
limits on campaign spending was unconstitutional (n.d.). It was in the 1990's that campaigners were
establishing alternate methods of funding, to bypass the Federal Election Campaign Act. Moreover,
the loopholes were primarily through media advocacy for urgency in voting for a specific candidate
and did not directly violation the FECA regulation. In 2002, Congress passed a reform act called the
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) (n.d.). Consequently, the BCRA law was also recognized
as the

John Paul Stevens: US Supreme Court Justice
Justice Stevens John Paul Stevens served as associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1975 until
his retirement in 2010. Throughout his judicial career, Stevens exercised a liberal view in the
courtroom and often displayed judicial restraint to the United States Congress. Justice Stevens was
appointed by President Ford in 1975 because of his judicial experience and personal confidence.
While serving as Associate Justice, Stevens provided opinions on many subjects including the death
penalty and affirmative action. Before serving as Justice of the Supreme Court, Stevens founded his
own law firm and gained an expertise in anti– trust laws. Due to his successful legal career, Stevens
was able to gain recognition allowing him to be nominated as Associate Justice of the Supreme
Court. Prior to his appointment as associate justice of the Supreme Court, John Stevens upheld
several different court positions and founded his own law firm. Stevens began his law career by
serving as assistant clerk to Justice Wiley Rutledge of the Supreme court. Following his term as a
clerk to Justice Rutledge, Stevens decided to seek a career in law by becoming a lawyer. After being
admitted to the Illinois bar in 1949, Stevens decided to join the law firm Poppenhusen, Johnston,
Thompson & Raymond as a lawyer. Stevens legal expertise was his work with antitrust laws, which
consisted of him regulating business associations and advocating fair competition to ensure the
welfare of consumers. In

Roe Vs. Wade: Supreme Court Case
Jonathan Hulbert
Professor O'Connor
Business Law
February 12, 2015
Roe v. Wade Roe versus Wade was a United States Supreme Court case on the topic of the legality
abortion. When the Supreme Court ruled that a woman's decision to have an abortion was a right to
privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, it was regarded as a landmark
decision. The decision removed state and federal restrictions on abortion, with the exception of in
the third trimester. Roe versus Wade is still a topic of discussion till this day, where some believe
that the decision should be overturned, however the popular opinion of the decision, has always
been in the affirmative. In 1970, Norma McCorvey, who claimed to have been raped, filed ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The court determined this through a series of rational, starting with the Ninth Amendment. They
asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of
personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined,
in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a
woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." The court also asserted that protecting
the mother's health and the potential human life were the governments interests, and the government
had the authority to make a stance on the topic. The matter of when abortion is safer than giving
birth that the decision for abortion must be left to the mother and her physician. Another right that
the decision preserved in the decision was that of a physician's right to practice freely, absent
government interest, not a woman's right to choose.
In cases where the baby cannot survive outside of the mother and the mother's health is in danger,
the state has the right to protect the health of the mother and may regulate the procedure. The
Justices debated over what should be the timeframe of when aborting can happen. Some suggested
up till the point of viability, abortions can occur. others said at the end of the first trimester.
However, both are ambiguous and arbitrary, so they proposed abandoning frameworks based on the
age of the fetus and instead allowing states to regulate the procedure based on its safety for the

Why Is Roe V. Wade Important
The United States Supreme Court rid the country of every abortion law on January 22, 1973. Roe v.
Wade played a huge role in the successful event. The landmark case of Roe v. Wade made a
controversial impact on today's world. The history of abortion laws is very extensive. Abortion laws
can date back to the 1800s (source 7). English statutory and common law are from where most of
the beginning abortion laws came from (source 1). The English Statutory laws say that if a women
were to have an abortion when the fetus is past the first trimester it is a major crime that is taken
seriously (source 1). If the fetus is in the first trimester the plenty of an abortion is lesser (source 1).
Abortion laws were put in place to help prevent young women ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
wade involved a female plaintiff and male defendant who changed history by what they claimed.
The determined plaintiff was a young pregnant woman named Norma McCorvey. The defendant
was the district attorney, Henry Wade. Norma McCorvey told her attorneys that the only way she
would go through with the lawsuit was if she used a fake name. Norma McCorvey used the name
Jane Roe. McCorvey was under Texas law. Texas law stated she did not have the right to an
abortion. McCorvey was not a women with vast amounts of wealth. She could not afford to go to a
different area to receive an abortion. Because of this the plaintiff, Roe claimed that the law violated
her privacy. She claimed her 1,4,5,9, and 14 amendments were violated. Her claim stated citizens
were given rights and privacy. The opponent Henry Wade was against abortion. Roe not only fought
for abortion, but for the right of privacy. Meanwhile the case was a conflict for many people. Most
people did not want to get involved so tried to remain neutral. A poll was taken on this statement,
"The decision to have an abortion should be made solely by a woman and her physician." The poll
showed that 64% of people agreed with this statement. The official ruling of the Supreme Court was
said by Mr. Justice Blackmum. The Supreme Court's final decision was that the laws violate the
rights of pregnant women. The Supreme Court's vote was 7–2. The plaintiff was the winner in this
case.

The Case Of Elonis V. United States
Judiciary Assignment While, reading the case, Elonis v. United States, I was astonished to see that
someone would post something so explicit, offensive, and inhumane. Basically, the case of Elonis v.
United States is about a man named Anthony Elonis who is an upcoming rapper and used his stage
name, Tone Dougie. His Facebook page consisted of him posting disturbing rap lyrics. Even though
Elonis was going through a divorce with his former wife, which did not stop him from writing and
posting crude lyrics. Eventually, it got to the point where his wife felt that she was being targeted by
his lyrics. According to an article on, New York Times, Elonis wrote that he wanted to see a
Halloween costume that included his wife's "head" on a stick. Obviously, she felt threatened and
reported the assaults to the police. Anthony Elonis was convicted for posting threats that targeted his
wife, his coworkers, police officers, a kindergarten class, and even an FBI agent. Although Elonis
argued that his posting are not considered to be a "true threat" and that he is protected under the First
Amendment. I believe he wanted to cause fear towards his wife, Tara and therefore, is his lyrics are
a true threat. Basically, a true threat is defined as something a person would consider to be
"purposely" harmful and cause pain. Elonis mentioned that his post were not offended nor were the
threatening anybody. He stated that he did not have the intent of trying to harm anyone, he was just
trying

Roe Vs Wade Summary
Roe vs. Wade In the case of Roe vs. Wade, Jane Roe, whose real name is Norma McCorvey was at
the time a single pregnant woman who challenged the Constitution of Texas's abortion laws. The
laws made it a crime to obtain or attempt an abortion except for medical reasons like to save the life
of the mother. Roe claimed rights to privacy. In 1971, the case was then sent to be argues in the
supreme court. In 1972, it was argued again. The case involved the rights of privacy that were
implied by the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments(Roe v Wade– Case Brief Summary,
2008). Wade argued "the state has a right to protect prenatal life. He argued that life is created at the
moment of contraception. The unborn are people and are entitled to protection under the
Constitution of Texas. The Texas law is a legal exercise of police powers reserved by the state in
order to protect the health and safety of citizens, not excluding unborn children. The law is
constitutional and should be upheld." In Wade's argument the issue being appealed would be that the
defendant doesn't agree that Jane Roe should have been allowed to obtain an abortion due to the fact
that he believes the fetus is a human and ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
It is not legal for a state to deny the people personal, marital, family, and sexual right to privacy. No
case in history has the court declared that a fetus, which is an infant developing in the womb, is a
person. Therefore, a fetus does not have any legal "right to life". Roe argued the Texas law is
unconstitutional and should be overturned." In Roe's argument the issue being appealed would be
that she, the plaintiff has the right to obtain an abortion whether the pregnancy is life threatening to
the mother or not. An abortion is solely the mothers decision and the child is unborn therefore has
no rights and need not be protected by the States or Constitutional law(Roe v Wade,

The Debate Over Same Sex Marriage
Dissenting Rhetoric On June 26, 2015, same–sex marriage was legalized across the united states,
due to a decision the Supreme Court made; the decision made all state level bans on same–sex
marriage were considered unconstitutional, thus overruling the bans. In the dissenting argument on
the Supreme Court's Decision to legalize same–sex couple marriage, Chief Justice Roberts makes a
passionate argument revolving around the fact that it was the Supreme Court that made the decision
and not the Country. Chief Justice Roberts shows his emotional look on the decision throughout the
dissenting argument. During the dissenting article his frustration and anger grows during the
moments where his personality was shown through. In the argument, Roberts stated, "Many people
will rejoice, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of
laws, not men, the majority's approach is deeply disheartening" (Roberts 2). Roberts is showing
though his own emotional outlook that he is not upset nor disappointed in the decision to allow
same–sex marriage, but disappointed that the Supreme Court of nine people was allowed to make a
decision for a country of fifty states. His disappointment continues, Roberts ends the dissenting
argument with a last thought, "Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the
Constitution. It had nothing to do with it. I respectfully dissent" (29). Roberts shows his anger at the
decision, that the choice was

Clarence Thomas is just the second African American...
Clarence Thomas is just the second African American justice to serve on the Supreme Court. Until
the very recent confirmations of both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, for the past twenty–
five plus years, Thomas had been the last conservative to be named to the current court, which is the
complete opposite of his predecessor Justice Thurgood Marshall. Thomas' confirmation hearings
have gone down in history as those containing the most drama. His hearings would produce such
intense arguments over race and gender. Thomas is one of the most publicly criticized justices in the
history of the Supreme Court. The primary reason for that is the "uncommon" connection between
his views and the color of his skin. Many black and white ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
Thomas believed that blacks were defeating the purpose that they had worked so hard in the past
decades to gain. By self–segregating "blacks were turning away from the real world." And so, rather
than separating himself from the Black Student Union and their personal corridor, he made a
compromise by deciding to live in the corridor, with his white roommate. (Thomas 117, Foskett 99–
102) Thomas was involved in the political scene at a very early age. After just two short years in
Washington, Thomas began working in President Reagan's administration. Thomas was a rarity in
Washington. In the Washington Post Thomas was introduced to the public. The article read, "He is
one of the black people now on center stage in American politics: he is a republican, a long–time
supporter of Ronald Reagan, opposed to the minimum wage law, rent control, busing and
affirmative action." (Foskett 152) For eight–years Thomas served on the Equal Employment
Opportunity Committee under Ronald Reagan. (Foskett 161–2) On June 30, 1991 President Bush
nominated Thomas to the Supreme Court. Similar to all nominees Thomas was sure to be asked
many difficult and personal questions. And being a black conservative, and to many liberals and
democrats, viewed as a traitor, passing his confirmation hearings and gaining approval from the
senate would be no easy task. If that weren't enough, Anita Hill made matters far more difficult
when she accused Thomas of sexual harassment, ten

The Voting Rights Act 42
SUMMARY The Voting Rights Act 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973 et seq., decision is important regarding the
laws governing voting rights and their relationship to minority voters. Its implication and effects
however does not end within the legal realms and dimensions but continues through to society,
culture, and human rights. The Voting Rights Act initially established in 1965 under Lyndon B.
Johnson's administration protected "racial minorities" from biased voting practices. It was a huge
stride in the civil rights movement and a victory over harmful, archaic, and biased voting practices
and traditions.
In 1973 Congress amended the Voting Rights Act and extended protections to members of
"languages minorities." The new language minorities' classification meant that the act's protection
now extended to voters non–English speaking minorities. These classifications included those who
spoke Spanish, Native American languages, Native Alaskan languages, and Asian languages. Some
of the changes to the new amendment within the Voting Rights Act prohibited literacy tests as a
requirement for voter registration. It also required jurisdictions with large minority language
speaking populations to have non–English speaking ballots as well as oral voting instructions that
conformed to the language minorities within their districts. Additionally, the new amendments to the
Voting Rights Act also protected minorities from voter dilution (the nullification of minority group
votes through a

Obamacare Essay
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius Life was different back in the 1880s. The
telephone had just been invented, James Garfield was president, and doctors used heroin and
cocaine as medicine. Alas, many doctors knew very little about medicine. Oftentimes unsafe and
unsterile practices were used on patients. The NY Times reports that, "At least a dozen medical
experts probed the President [Garfield]'s wound, often with unsterilized metal instruments or bare
hands, as was common at the time. Historians agree that massive infection, which resulted from
unsterile practices, contributed to Garfield's death. One man suggested that they turn the president
upside down and see if the bullet would just fall out." Because of ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Since insurance companies are required to provide care, it makes sense to buy insurance only when
you need it. In other words, wait until you get sick to buy insurance, because they cannot turn you
down. In order to combat this, the law includes an individual mandate, which requires anyone that
can afford it to buy health insurance, or pay a penalty to the IRS. In essence, this is the part of the
law that pays for it all. This is also the section many Republicans hate. In their philosophy, the
government cannot force someone to buy something they may or may not need. They argued that
this law was unconstitutional, and they sued in federal court to have the law nullified. There were
three cases overall: one from the states (Florida v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Svcs.), one from
the federal government (U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Svcs. v. Florida), and one from the
National Federation of Independent Business (Nat'l Fed. of Independent Bus. v. Sebelius). Due to
conflicting rulings from the lower courts in

Sergio Hernandez Guereca Was Shot By Jesus Mesa Jr.
Sergio Hernandez Guereca was shot by Jesus Mesa Jr. in 2010 on the Mexico–United States border.
Sergio was on the Mexican side while Mesa was on the American side. Sergio's parents are now
trying to sue Mr. Mesa in an American court. The Supreme Court is deciding whether the Guerecas
can sue and if constitutional protections extend across the border. What implications would be made
if the Guerecas are allowed to sue? What do those implications mean? Everything will be explained
and clarified so you can understand this article better.
The case, Hernandez v. Mesa, would raise questions whatever the ruling is. If Hernandez won, it
would imply that constitutional protections would extend beyond the border. Chief Justice John G.
Roberts Jr. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Alito Jr. does not believe there is not yet a correct way to rule this case because there is not yet a law
about cross–border shootings. Justice Elena Kagan said, "the dividing line isn't even marked on the
ground. You can't tell on the ground where Mexico ends and the United States begins." Justice Ruth
Bader is sympathetic with the Guereca's case. Someone killed on the American side of the border
would have rights while a someone a few feet away wouldn't. She says that it "doesn't make a whole
lot of sense." Randolph J. Ortega, a lawyer for Mr. Mesa, fired back, "Wars have been fought to
establish borders. The border is very real." Every Justice has a different opinion and the ones
mentioned were not fully against the lawsuit.
The article excludes the views of two justices. They were Justices Sotomayor and Thomas. All the
Justices that were included all supported the case or had mixed feelings. Maybe the two justices did
not express their opinions or they could have opposed the lawsuit. In the article, it said that "four
more liberal justices were inclined to vote to allow the parents to sue. But it was less certain that
they could capture the crucial fifth vote of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy." This may mean that some
did oppose the suit and were not included. It can mean that this article is slightly biased if the other
two justices had comments, but were not in it. No one knows for sure who were the "four more
liberal justices" who supported the suit,

Roe Vs Wade Essay
Roe v. Wade was a decision made by United States Supreme Court regarding abortion in 1973. It
was, and still is, one of the most controversial decisions the Supreme Court has ever made. Abortion
is defined "the ending of pregnancy by removing a fetus or embryo before it can survive outside the
uterus". The appellant was a single, pregnant woman from Texas who wished to get an abortion.
Prior to the court's decision, abortion was illegal under Texas state law except in cases where the
abortion would save the pregnant woman's life. The appellee was Henry Wade, a lawyer defending
the Texas state law. The court ruled on the side of Roe, with a 7–2 decision. The Supreme Court
"ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy", and argued that the
"Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
It was argued that anti–abortion laws were "the product of a Victorian social concern to discourage
illicit sexual conduct" (543). Another reason abortion was previously prohibited was because "the
procedure was a hazardous one for the woman" (544). The court pointed out that this was no longer
valid or relevant in this day of age. They explained that abortion was now "relatively safe", and that
"mortality rates for women undergoing early abortions, where the procedure is legal, appear to be as
low as or lower than the rates of normal childbirth" (544). When abortion is prohibited, women
seeking abortions sometimes tend to undergo illegal abortions, which are extremely unsafe.
Therefore, the court said, "the state has a legitimate interest in seeing that abortion, like any other
medical procedure, is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient"
(544). When abortion was illegal, the mortality rate for women having abortions was significantly
higher than when it was made

Obergefell V Hodges Pros And Cons
In The Gay Marriage Case, Obergefell v Hodges, the United States Supreme Court decided that a
state may not prohibit same–sex marriage. Instead, it emphasized that the fundamental right to
marry is guaranteed to the gay society through the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment of the
United States of America Constitution. The involved decision maker in the case was Justice
Anthony Kennedy, who gave four primary reasons for his decision. Despite the numerous criticisms
about the decision, the idea of giving the fundamental rights to marriage to the same–sex couples
stands out to be a positive decision. According to Justice Kennedy, human dignity clarifies the idea
that the right to personal choices concerning marriage is inherent in ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
By that, the meant ideas are the legislative actions that left LGBT rights advocates worsened off
than at the beginning. Notably, backlash proponents emphasized that 45 states have prohibited the
recognition of the SSM. In summary of these, the Obergefell V Hodges has received opposition as
well as propositions at different degrees, but the majority of the debaters' are the proposing side. The
main idea here was to legalize the Same–sex marriage which had been prohibited in the previous
court rulings (Siegel, 2015). The proposing team was emphasizing on the following factors; the right
to personal choices as clarified in the human dignity, the right to intimate association, marriage as a
foundation of the American social order and the ability to sustain and safeguard children and
families (Siegel, 2015). Against this factors are; Chief Justice John Roberts emphasize on the SSM
as being a democratic disrespect, judicial putsch by associate justice Antonin, inextricably linked by
justice Samuel Alito and many other factors. Thus, it is essential to consider the actual changes in
the opinion count resulting from a decision and the political backlash to adequately determine the
relationship between the Supreme Court's decision and the public

The Court : The Supreme Court Exists
The Supreme Court attests. The Court noticed that its point of reference requests a case–by–case
examination when lower courts figure out if urgent conditions advocated a warrantless pursuit. In
spite of the fact that the State contended that exigency essentially exists in any DWI related blood
test given that blood–alcohol content quickly decreases with time, the Court found no argumentation
to embrace a per se rule. The Court concurred that essentially postponing a blood test to get a
warrant would adversely influence the supportive value of the outcomes. However, it contemplated
that when the state have sufficient time to get a warrant, the Fourth Amendment obliges it to do as
such. While getting a warrant is unrealistic, the blood testing may well honor an exigency exception.
Since the State construct its contention exclusively in light of the proposed per se rule, the Court
declined to detail the significant elements courts must weigh while investigating exigency in DWI
cases. The State Supreme Court affirmed, relying on Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, in
which this Court upheld a DWI suspect's warrantless blood test where the officer "might reasonably
have believed that he was confronted with an emergency, in which the delay necessary to obtain a
warrant, under the circumstances, threatened 'the destruction of evidence,' " id., at 770 (Missouri v.
McNeely, 2013) How the Vote Decided: Majority Opinion, Concurring, Dissenting: The majority
opinion was

Friedrichs V California Student Council Case Summary
Dear Chief Justice John Roberts, at the issue in Friedrichs v. California requiring public school
teachers to pay dues to a local teachers' union to underwrite the cost of the union's work on
collective bargaining. Educators who would prefer not to sponsor the union's other political action in
composing each year to stay away from those charges, however despite everything they need to pay
for their offer of the representation. A legitimate case now before the U.S. Incomparable Court,
Friedrichs versus California Teachers Association, represents a potential risk to the quality of open
area unions across the country. The standard of decent amount is the topic being argued. Basically
all who advantage from union representation ought to share reasonably ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Consequently, the free ridership would be not accidental but rather calculated, not forced by
circumstances but rather commanded by government decree. While public employees can't be
required to join a union, they can be required to pay charges connected with union representation. In
Abood, government funded teachers claimed that these "agency shop" or "fair share" understandings
added up to constrained political discourse disregarding the First Amendment. Although with a little
search you find that the fair share agreements did not violate the Constitution as long as the non–
member fee was limited to collective bargaining and contract administration expenses. The Court
has more than once maintained the Abood choice. Supporters contend that on the grounds that
unions are required to speak to all representatives, whether they decide to join the union or not, it's
not out of the question to require everybody to pay their offer. Generally non–individuals are
permitted to free–ride, getting a charge out of the advantages of union representation without

Social Controversies In America
Most people in America would agree that America really needs help. There are so many
controversies, do we make America great again or do we go with the first female president? The
Story of "Utopia" by Thomas More presents many of the social problems that America is also
facing, but this was far before America was facing these issues. Thomas More is not only the writer
of the story, but is also a character in the story. In the story he goes to Flanders and starts talking to
this man named Raphael. Raphael then points out social controversies in the justice, political, and
religious systems in England
In England there are a lot of cases of thefts and the English not only notice and do not understand
why they are happening, but they also do not ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Raphael points out some interesting things about their social systems and some interesting ways as
to how to fix it, but America does not need a man like Raphael leading this country to fix this
country. If Americans would stop passing the issue to the next person and just deal with the issue
America would be a much better country. If Americans were more empathetic and just cared for
their neighbors America would be a better place. Maybe Americans need to stop paying attention to
the next big trend and started looking at the big picture and stood up for what they believed in
America would be a better

The Abortion Debate
Abortion
In the year of 1973 the supreme court ruled in favor of legalizing abortion, many of the America
women liked this law because it would them the more freedom to make their own decisions for
themselves. In the issue of abortion there are two sides, pro–life and pro– choice, these two sides has
been the topic for a lot of arguments in the past and even now. The questions that many people ask
are: Is abortion beneficial to the person? Or are there certain situations that will allow women to get
a abortion? Should we allow young women to have abortions without parental consent?. Most of the
questions are asked by people in high power trying to win the people of either side, then religion
argues about this issue. But, would pro–choice

Roe V. Wade Case Analysis
Texas is home to the well–known Roe v. Wade court case, yet has typically remained socially
conservative on abortion and Texas' pro–life community has since made an impact into revising past
legislation that went against their views.
The short history of abortion in Texas can be first dated back to 1973, where the landmark case of
Roe v. Wade took place, with the Supreme Court ruling in nationwide legalization of abortion. In
2013, a bill was passed that restricted abortion in Texas, which has led to a substantial decline in
abortion access. In 2014, District Judge Lee Yeakel ruled two provisions to abortion as
unconstitutional, as these laws would have dissolved nearly a dozen abortion clinics.
The significance to society surrounding this ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In contrast, Republicans oppose the act, funding, and promotion of abortion and what may come of
it as a result, such as embryonic stem cell research. Both parties, in attempts to substantiate their
position on abortion, unabashedly claim to speak for the majority of

Roe V. Wade Case Analysis
On a cold day in January of 1973, Roe V. Wade was passed by the Supreme Court. This nationwide
case made abortion fully legal in the United States. Supreme Court justices agreed that the
constitutions first, fourth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments protect an individual's rights of privacy
against state laws. Things such as marriage, contraception, and so forth fall under such laws. It was
found that abortion falls under these privacy laws, as well. This was a huge win for women's rights.
Not only did women gain the right to make a safe and legal decision about their own bodies, but it
was also an important win because at the time one in five maternal deaths were due to illegal
abortions (Abortion, Issues and Controversies). Now that abortion is legal, and has been for over
forty years, the maternal death rate is much lower and the number of abortions is actually declining
(Rachel, Jones, et al.). Women in the modern age now have access to safe abortions, which is good.
However, they also ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Pregnancy is not a walk in the park, and deciding to spend nine months carrying a baby should be a
nothing but a positive and healthy experience for a women; not something that she is forced against
her will to do because she simply has no other options. If abortions were to become illegal once
again, many women seeking to terminate their pregnancies would be forced to resort to unsafe and
dangerous underground procedures. These underground abortions, which would most likely be
performed in an unsanitary location and not by a medical professional, would lead to higher
instances of infection and death (Abortion, Issues and controversies). Politicians, state governments,
and people that want to put heavy restrictions and even outlaw all access to abortion are immensely
damaging the fundamental rights of women to make private decisions on what to do with their own

John G. Roberts

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Jacqueline Thomas

More from Jacqueline Thomas (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

John G. Roberts