Chapter 14 Blog
Here is what I learned about our US Supreme Court Justices:
- John Roberts-Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, appointed by President George Bush Sr., graduated from Harvard Law. He was the captain of his football team at LaLumiere High School in LaPorte, Indiana.
- Sonia Sotomayer-She is the first Hispanic American supreme court justice, appointed by President Obama. She grew up poor in the housing projects in South Bronx. She attended Princeton University and Yale.
- Stephen Breyer-Appointed by President Clinton, he attended Stanford, Nagladen College at Oxford, and Harvard Law. In his early career, he was a law clerk to former Associate Justice Arthur Goldberg.
- Samuel Alito-Appointed by President George Bush Sr. He attended Princeton and Yale. He was also in the ROTC program and was later in the Army Reserves.
- Elena Kagan- Appointed by President Obama, she attended Harvard and Princeton, and was the first female Dean at Harvard Law. Her father was a lawyer and her mother was a teacher.
- Clarence Thomas-Appointed by President George Bush Sr., he attended Yale school of Law, which Thomas considers his degree to be worth 15 cents. He grew up extremely poor, his father abandoned his family when Thomas was 2 years old. His mother, struggling to make ends meet, took the family to live with her parents, at which point Thomas learned the value of hard work from his grandfather.
- Antonin Scalia-Appointed by President Reagan, he graduated from Harvard Law. Though he was always at the top of his class, I found him to be the least interesting of the justices. He is even quoted as saying, "I was never cool".
- Anthony Kennedy-Appointed by President Reagan, he attended Stanford and Harvard Law. His father was an attorney and he was once in the Army National Guard.
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg-Appointed by President Clinton, she attended Cornell University, Columbia and Harvard Law schools. She was the first Jewish female to be appointed to the Supreme Court. Most of her law career was devoted to the advancement of women's rights.
In the case of Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush (2002), Sonya Sotomayer upheld a lower court ruling in favor of the Mexico City Policy, a policy that states that no country receiving funds from the US government may use the money to fund abortions. In this case an abortion rights group claimed that this policy violated their First Amendment rights. Sotomayer wrote that "since the claims are based on International Law, they are indistinguishable from the First Amendment. She also wrote that "The Supreme Court is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position and can do so without public funds." I agree with her for several reasons. As a firm believer in pro-life, I am against abortion in general. I also feel that our government should only give money and assistance to other countries where it is absolutely essential, not for abortions. I agree that US Constitutional Rights only apply to American soil.
Judicial Review should be used regularly. I feel that the implementation of Judicial Review gives an adequate balance of power to the judicial branch, in relation to the executive and legislative branches. I feel that it is of utmost importance that statutes and treaties passed are constitutional, therefore it is important that the Supreme Court has the power to overturn any law passed through Congress.
I think it is important for the High Court to consider the intent of the Framers, while considering the changes in society. I believe in our Constitution, however it was implemented 225 years ago. We are a completely different society today. Our country is much larger now, and with very different major issues than in the latter 1700's. With that being said, I think that if we stray to far from the strict construction of our Constitution, our country will begin to lose it's way, entirely.
Blogs I commented on:
-Dylan Thevenard
-Robert Johnson
-Matthew Cooper
Blogs I commented on:
-Dylan Thevenard
-Robert Johnson
-Matthew Cooper
i agree most definately with the abortion-i will always be for life!!! i am also for judicial review that upholds the original meanings and intentions. it has worked and created stability and prosperity. we will most definately lose our way if we stray
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on being pro-life. I am against abortions in almost every circumstance. I agree that judicial review is useful to make sure that what the other two branches are doing is constitutional, however I feel like it should be used sparingly. It is a very powerful tool at the Court's disposal, and it could be abused. Finally, I also agree that we must keep the intent of the Framers in mind, but we have changed as a country. There have been many amendments to our Constitution, such as abolishing slavery, that were obviously the right choice, yet I'm not sure the Framers ever had slavery in mind.
ReplyDeleteRobert DeVaney
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you about the Constitution. This is an entirely different world than it was back then. I think there should be mixture of the strict and living taken into play. I agree that we have to stick to the strict or we will lose what this country was founded on so many years ago. I believe the Constitution will continue to adapt with time, no matter what our society throws at it. I just hope we will prove to stay and rely on it, and not find new ways or start from scratch.
I found it interesting that most of the United States Supreme Court Justices attended Harvard or Yale. I researched Stephen G. Breyer and found that he is the 108th Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. He argues that the job of the Supreme Court is to apply the Constitution’s values to modern circumstances, using the tools of judging: precedent, text and an assessment of the purpose of the constitutional provision at issue; and I agree that the Constitution should be applied to modern day circumstances. I think judicial review should be exercised regularly, and I also think the Constitution should be applied strictly to the changes of society.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate all the detail that you gave on the judges. I ,also, agree with the outcome of the case you mentioned. I am pro-life as well, but that's not the only reason that I agree with your words and the judges' outcome. The more money that goes to programs like this, the less can go to things I, as well as many, find more important, such as education or the treatment of our veterans. It cost a lot for the government to fund these programs, and this isn't even going to our citizens but to another country's. If we assigned the money as a gift or towards abortion that's different, but otherwise the money we send to other nations should go towards helping the citizens there, not funding abortion.
ReplyDeleteI agree with mostly everything you said. I know the subject of abortion is very touchy to se people. I am pro-choice. I do feel the government should not fund money to abortion however, I still feel under certain circumstances if a woman wanted to do that she should have to pay. There are other things our government needs to fund and I do NOT feel that because someone wanted to have an abortion the government should pay for it.
ReplyDeleteI researched all the justices, Sandra Day O'Conner and Sonia Sotomayor were my choices.
ReplyDeleteI found that Justice Kennedy was the deciding vote on a lot of cases as well as Justice O'Connor.
I think the framers way of the constitution is the way the law should be reviewed on.
On the matter of abortion, I am against abortion unless the woman or fetus life is in danger. The only other instance I would consider might be rape.