The West Wing: The Supremes

Connections to actual Judiciary branch:

1.     The Justices-elect are seen talking about how their decisions on a case are based on the case and not their political ideology.

2.     The Appointment of a Supreme Court Justice by the president.

3.     The choice of the Justices are based on their views and if the Senate will pass them or not.

4.     The President's administration finds multiple candidates in case one is not confirmed by the Senate.

5.     The President does not directly pick the Justice, but has a list presented by his administration.

6.     A moderate Justice would be the best choice, but they wanted an even court.

7.     The President tries to have a justice picked who has view that are close to their own, so they are able to make an impression that will last longer than their presidential term.

8.     A vacant position is usually filled with someone similar to the previous justice.

Questions:

1.     Would such a liberal justice like, Evelyn Baker Lang, or would she be not even be considered?

2.     Does the president have the same amount of decision power as portrayed?

3.     Were the two justices who were appointed confirmed by the Senate?

4.     Would a Republican Judiciary comity really let such a deal happen?

5.     Do many justices act based on their ideology or are they more moderate/ go case by case?

Neither Force Nor Will: Federalist 78

Quotes:

1.  "It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment"
• I really love this quote, I think it completely sums up the power and proceeding of the Judicial Branch. As I see it the quote is saying that through only judgement the quote will make decision, not for or because of money and strength, but only under justice. I think this quote is important in the understanding of the Judicial Branch, because it shows that the judges are not bound by money, political power, or their party's ideology.
2. " It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority."
• I think that this quote shows the purpose of the Judicial Branch and it's role within the system of checks and balances. The quote is also accurate in the fact that the courts are different from the legislature, but also different from the people. Hamilton may possible be hinting to the power of judicial review with in this quote.
3. " It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both"
• I choose this quote because of the mixed opinions i had after reading it. When I read the quote I was unsure if I thought it true or not; in some cases the people have power in choosing the legislators and representatives who run the country, but as citizens we have not direct influence on decision making.
4. " It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter"
• I picked this quote because it questions the idea that the judicial courts can never threaten the liberty of our citizens. This quote is very important because of its misconception. Over the years of our existence there have been many instances in which the courts have threatened the liberty of more than just an individual. The greatest example of this would be, Plessy v. Ferguson.
5. "But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society."

• I took this quote because I think that it shows Hamilton's feelings toward the Judicial Branch's views of politics and society. I feel that the quote explains how judges must be apart of government, but separated in its own unpolitical category.

Questions for Hamilton:

1. How would you view the Court that we have today, would you view it as more or too powerful, or would you think that it is now equal to the other branches?
2. If you were to look at cases from our past would you think any corrupt and biased based on a justice's political ideology?
3. Do you think that the life term of a justice is an unfair advantage in the case of legislature in the executive department, because of the ability to leave an impression of your views with in the Court?
4. How would the government deal with a judge taking the liberties of a citizen away?
5. As a politician do you think that a new Justice should set precedents from the Court's past or should past precedents be ignored?

2000 Election: Handout Issue 7 part 2

Facts:

1. The Supreme Court intervened in the election four times.
2. Katherine Harris made the deadline for the recount Nov. 14, 2000, while the electors did not meet until the 16th of Dec.
3. Because of the absence of standards the Supreme Court deemed the manual recount unlawful.
4. Bush suggested to the court that because of the different standards it is impossible to recount with out the equal protection clause being broken.
5. Sunstein thinks that the Supreme Court should not intervene in electoral controversy.
6. Sunstein viewed the Supreme Court's decision as to minimal to decide the controversy
7. The Court's decision lack precedent.
8. Each county in Florida had different counting systems, in the case of the poorer counties their vote counting machines were lower quality than the richer counties, thus the equal protection clause could have been violated.

Post Reading Questions:

1. As a civilian would you be able to sue the state if you had proof that you were exempt from the vote or your vote was incorrectly represented?
2. Where would a future court stand on a matter similar to this would they use precedent or would they ignore the obviously confused court's precedent?
3. What would Bush say to the use of voters intent, because of his decision in his own state (also disregarding state legislature)?
4. Are the remedies that Sunstein proposed realistic or are they only hopeful?
5. Looking back would the court decide differently even though it was only supposed to be a decision based on law?

Check Up: The "New" Old Guy

I have decided to change the representative that I am following from John Lewis to Pete Stark. He is a representative for the state of California, a Democrat ( though many may say social Dem.), and he works for the House. A little background, he has had his Congressional seat since 1973, he is the only open atheistic Congressmen, and he represents the 13th District of CA.

• Update: As of today Stark had just introduced a new bill in front of the House, called the Save Our Climate Act, the bill includes a proposal to put a carbon tax (yeah!) on companies to cut back the use of fossil fuels. The carbon tax will steadily rise hoping to exterminate the use of fossil fuels and the huge carbon output of humans. The introduction statement to the bill can be found here.

Pete Stark

Pete Stark has become my favorite politician, if that is possible. He is an out spoken liberal who isn't afraid to get to the point, or to use fowl language.

"The Common Good"

The article, "The Common Good", speak, or debates, what really is the common good, and if there really is just one definition. The common good is one of the bases for political parties or faction, as most Republicans are against the common good, and Democrats are mostly for it. When viewing the anti-common good side I can help, but think that is goes against human progress. For someone to feel that they, through their work, should progress, while others who do not have the same opportunities can wither, is alien to me. My ideology is almost based on 'the common good' in which I think that we need to work as a species to all have a better quality of life. It wasn't Thomas Jefferson's idea to write the Declaration of Independence, it was a nation's. The role of government is to be the back bone of the push towards common greatness, to outline society's decision of working as a nation for the nation. This article was super liberal, which I found completely enjoyable. Also if my response is called communist, then you are wrong, the term is socialism.

Interview: Constitution Questions

I interviewed the center of my family's universe, my mother. I asked a few of the question that i myself had for the US Constitution. She answered them in turn and gave here opinion about each matter.

• Would the founding fathers agree with the Amendments that we have made to the constitution, both in recent years and right after?
• Her response was: the founding fathers would agree with many of the amendments made right after the constitution, but some of the more recent amendments the would not understand many of the amendments that have been made recently. Even in the 20th century, like the amendment dealing with equal rights of all sexes/ women's suffrage, for the most part they would have thought it weird because it goes against their ideology the accepted ideology of the time period.
• How long did the founding fathers expect the US Constitution would last?
• Her response: They might have been hopeful that it would go indefinitely, or last for many generations. But most likely they did not expect that it could have lasted to long and the opinion could have changed depending on which founding father it was.
• Is it fair that there are no actual requirements to be a Supreme Court Justice (besides appointment and confirmation)?
• Her response: no, it does seem very unfair, but the person has to be chosen by the president, whom needs to make decisions that will get him re-elected. So it is a bit unfair, but the President wouldn't appoint anyone unfit.

(some of these questions have been change from the original post to better fit to an interview)

2000 Election: Handout, Issue 7

Pre-Reading Questions:

1. What are the author's political views/ political ideology?
2. When was this written?
3. Was the author pro-Bush or did they think that the recount was purely unconstitutional?
4. Is there another side/ article that argues the Bush vs. Gore trial was decided unfairly?
5. Over all would the author, looking back on the Bush administration, agree or disagree with the statement:  It was a mistake deciding the Bush vs. Gore trial in favor of Bush?

Facts/ Comments about Article:

1. It seems that the author was bragging when he said, "Bush had, in practical effect, won seven to two," but is it right to say that Bush won by seven to two, it seem to be biased. (though my comment is also pro-Gore)
2. Gore was four votes short of the necessary 270 electoral votes.
3. Robert H. Bork represents, in the paper, the side that agreed with the decision of the Supreme Court
4. Cass R. Sunstein represents the side that thinks the Supreme Court's ruling was unfair.
5. Roberts sees a crack in the judicial system, saying that judges can be just as political as politicians
6. Roberts disagrees with the dimple/ intent being counted as a vote.

Post-Reading Questions:

1. Would Roberts have flip-flopped if Bush were on the losing side?
2. Did Roberts think the Supreme Court's decision was purely judicial or was there some political opinions that added to the decision?
3. Can all of Roberts arguments be taken in to account or do some of them, like the argument about the impossibility of the recount meeting its date, have to be looked over?
4. Is Roberts hypocritical when he says Gore had a win-at-any-cost temper, because the ignorance of the Republican side in regards to dimple chad, which George W. Bush agreed with?
5. What would Roberts say to a question asking about the list of criminals plus the list of similar names, of legal voters?