MR.PRESIDENT JOINS THE SUPREME COURT?
POL3 AP3
D.B 2022
Introduction
Welcome to the supreme court, where we make decisions formulated by the people, for the people, and to the people. That's right, morally we've always made the right decisions and it's actually okay for us to decide what is and isn't constitutional.
See, my introduction is very clever and witty because that's exactly opposite of my current feelings on how the supreme court justice runs. Welcome back to our grand finale for Politics, the judicial branch. Looking at what it means to part of this branch, where we see what the varying roles and significance to our history here in the United States are formulated by this branch, such as going down a timeline of supreme court decisions that were mainly unruly, to how certain figures of the judicial branch argued over what is and shouldn't be constitutional. We even touched on different type of philosophies that members of the judicial branch have and what exactly they mean.
For this action project, we were tasked to present ourselves as a nominee to the supreme court and answer the questions proposed by the senate to determine the classic "yay" or "nay" thumbs-up-thumbs-down situation to pass us through into the supreme court. Below I've created an audio recording of me being questioned by also me (but with a horrible old man voice) formulated on pre-set questions we were tasked with answering. Enjoy.
THE QUESTIONS AT STAKE
Below are the questions that'll follow through in the judgement day recording, with my response to each. I was given the luxury of opting out of one question of my choosing from these six for this action project, which I will have noted as being opted out of below, along with my "documented" answers for those unable to listen.
The U.S. Constitution designed a government of ‘separate institutions sharing power’ by dividing authority among three branches and even further with a federal system creating layers of government. What is your understanding of the role of the federal judiciary in relation to the elected branches and local governments? (Anna O. Law)
(OPTED OUT)
To what extent, if any, do you believe it’s advisable for a Supreme Court justice to be publicly active and accessible? What do you see as the appropriate public role for a justice of the Supreme Court? (John Culhane)
(ANSWERED): I believe that the supreme court, in terms of public activity and accessibility, should be up to a democratic popular vote made by the people, and discussed topics should be brought to the attention of the public to assess an opinion representative of the nation. To be fully confident in calling on something to become a stare decisis, it should be made in unison of the nation. Had this been a different time, I would feel different about voicing for the majority on a supreme court, but I believe we have raised our current generations to be who we need this world to be, and should not dither away from allowing them to be part of our voice. In the case of Dred Scott v Sandford, I would not have held this same philosophy when the nation was only barely split on the idea of slavery in the United States. We have amassed such a diverse population that the majority knows how to speak for the good of our nation, rather than before where we viewed men and women of color as inferior to our government branch.
How would you go about working with your more conservative colleagues? How do you see your role on a multi member court? (William Araiza)
(ANSWERED): They will be treated with the equal respect that I would give any of my fellow colleagues. There will be conflicting interests that need to be sorted and reasoned so I will take it upon myself to put it in my best interest to create compromise rather than conflict on the supreme court. My role on a multi member court will be a voice for the people, not an association to a specific party. For if I am to be the representative of the majority, then in due course if my actions I have taken are deemed “unconstitutional” it was under the influence of the people and not my own.
Is it possible that the trajectory of current events might require a rethinking of 1803’s Marbury v. Madison, the foundational case in which the Supreme Court gave itself the final say on the meaning of the Constitution? In other words, is the modern Supreme Court amassing too much power for itself? (Kimberly Wehle)
(ANSWERED): The process of being nominated into supreme court in its current state is in no place to have the amount of power it has. The supreme court has amassed too much power and has shown through their own actions, such as in advocating for overturning Roe V. Wade under the reasoning that it was deemed “unconstitutional” means that it is clear that the majority are not for the people, but for themselves.
A supreme court should not act on their own belief of what is and isn’t constitutional, all in the while ignoring the mass majority of the United States people with no real stressor on their actions being punished. It is in that fact, this state of feeling untouchable, that the supreme court feels unbound by checks and balances.
This ultimately calls for a rethinking of Marbury v. Madison, as in this day and age the constitution has been molded time and time again to suit the needs of those in power when in need of such power.
What area of law was your former boss, Justice Stephen Breyer, who you’ll be replacing, most wrong about, and why? (Daniel Epps)
(ANSWERED):
Justice Stephen Breyer actually shares a lot of the core values that I do as a justice nominee, which makes it incredibly difficult for me to find flaws in his philosophy as a Justice. His actions as a justice at its foundation was for the people, something I believe to be crucial to becoming a supreme court justice. He was an advocate for the voting rights act, voiced concern for the approach on the death penalty, and even in his role for creating the Boston federal courthouse in 1990 was influential to my philosophy of government. He stated on the site that this most beautiful site in Boston...does not belong to the lawyers, it does not belong to the federal government, it does not belong to the litigants. It belongs to the people."
He is what we should aspire to be as supreme court justices now.
How have your experiences with the criminal legal system shaped your views about the nation’s system of crime and punishment, and about the judicial role? (Tomiko Brown-Nagin)
(ANSWERED): I believe it not to be an amendment that stands as a stare decisis, but one that calls for revision. Slavery and involuntary servitude has always felt to be cruel and unusual punishment that is overlooked because it brings in profit. It is cruel to strip years of life from a person for minor criminal offenses, and made unusual when the mass majority are black and brown folk.
We only recently have seen changes in how we pursue minor criminal offenses, such as the increasing requirement to what amount of drugs calls for years of life, but even in these case scenarios, the prison and supreme court system feels inclined to hold its prisoners for years that current offenders do not need to serve. In the case of Terry v. United States, he was arrested for possession of 4 grams of cocaine, which has kept him in prison since 2008 to now. Even though in accordance to current changes in our law he no longer needs to serve the years that they’re holding him in for to this day, we still feel inclined to hold criminals responsible to the punishment that only was relevant to its time.
To what extent, if any, do you believe it’s advisable for a Supreme Court justice to be publicly active and accessible? What do you see as the appropriate public role for a justice of the Supreme Court? (John Culhane)
(ANSWERED): I believe that the supreme court, in terms of public activity and accessibility, should be up to a democratic popular vote made by the people, and discussed topics should be brought to the attention of the public to assess an opinion representative of the nation. To be fully confident in calling on something to become a stare decisis, it should be made in unison of the nation. Had this been a different time, I would feel different about voicing for the majority on a supreme court, but I believe we have raised our current generations to be who we need this world to be, and should not dither away from allowing them to be part of our voice. In the case of Dred Scott v Sandford, I would not have held this same philosophy when the nation was only barely split on the idea of slavery in the United States. We have amassed such a diverse population that the majority knows how to speak for the good of our nation, rather than before where we viewed men and women of color as inferior to our government branch.
How would you go about working with your more conservative colleagues? How do you see your role on a multi member court? (William Araiza)
(ANSWERED): They will be treated with the equal respect that I would give any of my fellow colleagues. There will be conflicting interests that need to be sorted and reasoned so I will take it upon myself to put it in my best interest to create compromise rather than conflict on the supreme court. My role on a multi member court will be a voice for the people, not an association to a specific party. For if I am to be the representative of the majority, then in due course if my actions I have taken are deemed “unconstitutional” it was under the influence of the people and not my own.
Is it possible that the trajectory of current events might require a rethinking of 1803’s Marbury v. Madison, the foundational case in which the Supreme Court gave itself the final say on the meaning of the Constitution? In other words, is the modern Supreme Court amassing too much power for itself? (Kimberly Wehle)
(ANSWERED): The process of being nominated into supreme court in its current state is in no place to have the amount of power it has. The supreme court has amassed too much power and has shown through their own actions, such as in advocating for overturning Roe V. Wade under the reasoning that it was deemed “unconstitutional” means that it is clear that the majority are not for the people, but for themselves.
A supreme court should not act on their own belief of what is and isn’t constitutional, all in the while ignoring the mass majority of the United States people with no real stressor on their actions being punished. It is in that fact, this state of feeling untouchable, that the supreme court feels unbound by checks and balances.
This ultimately calls for a rethinking of Marbury v. Madison, as in this day and age the constitution has been molded time and time again to suit the needs of those in power when in need of such power.
What area of law was your former boss, Justice Stephen Breyer, who you’ll be replacing, most wrong about, and why? (Daniel Epps)
(ANSWERED):
Justice Stephen Breyer actually shares a lot of the core values that I do as a justice nominee, which makes it incredibly difficult for me to find flaws in his philosophy as a Justice. His actions as a justice at its foundation was for the people, something I believe to be crucial to becoming a supreme court justice. He was an advocate for the voting rights act, voiced concern for the approach on the death penalty, and even in his role for creating the Boston federal courthouse in 1990 was influential to my philosophy of government. He stated on the site that this most beautiful site in Boston...does not belong to the lawyers, it does not belong to the federal government, it does not belong to the litigants. It belongs to the people."
He is what we should aspire to be as supreme court justices now.
How have your experiences with the criminal legal system shaped your views about the nation’s system of crime and punishment, and about the judicial role? (Tomiko Brown-Nagin)
(ANSWERED): I believe it not to be an amendment that stands as a stare decisis, but one that calls for revision. Slavery and involuntary servitude has always felt to be cruel and unusual punishment that is overlooked because it brings in profit. It is cruel to strip years of life from a person for minor criminal offenses, and made unusual when the mass majority are black and brown folk.
We only recently have seen changes in how we pursue minor criminal offenses, such as the increasing requirement to what amount of drugs calls for years of life, but even in these case scenarios, the prison and supreme court system feels inclined to hold its prisoners for years that current offenders do not need to serve. In the case of Terry v. United States, he was arrested for possession of 4 grams of cocaine, which has kept him in prison since 2008 to now. Even though in accordance to current changes in our law he no longer needs to serve the years that they’re holding him in for to this day, we still feel inclined to hold criminals responsible to the punishment that only was relevant to its time.
 |
| "D.C 4 SUPREME COURT" D.C, 2022, DIGITAL. |
CITATIONS
"Gregg v. Georgia." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1975/74-6257. Accessed 3 Jun. 2022.
Greenhouse, Linda. "Stephen Breyer Was the Right Justice for the Wrong Age" https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/26/opinion/breyer-supreme-court-retirement.html
Jack, Jennifer. "10 Things You Didn't Know About Stephen Breyer" https://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2007/10/01/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-stephen-breyer
"Marbury v. Madison." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/5us137. Accessed 3 Jun. 2022.
No comments:
Post a Comment