Blog 4
Blog #4: Pick 3 cases from the previous list. For each case:
- Explain the holding and majority opinion (and notable dissent)
- Explain what judicial philosophy is reflected
- Evaluate the context of the decision with the framework of your own beliefs (e.g. if you select Roe v. Wade, explain your position on abortion.)
1). Marbury v Madison ( 1803)
Context: A case in which the Court first asserted the power of judicial review in finding that a congressional statue extending the Court's original jurisdiction was unconstitutional.
The holding of the Marbury v Madison case of 1803 is where the court formed the judicial review in the United States. The holding was important because it helped made a line between the executive and judicial power branches of the United States. The majority opinion was delivered by Marshall, joined by Paterson, Chase and Washington. With the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional and to enlarge judicial jurisdiction in the Supreme Court. The decision was a 4-0. The judicial philosophy reflected in this case was the branch of judicial power itself and its ancient roots that came into play with this particular case. The concept of judicial review was originated with Marbury because it was the first case to exercise the power. My position on this case is understanding the basis behind the judicial review and jurisdiction as well.
The holding of the Marbury v Madison case of 1803 is where the court formed the judicial review in the United States. The holding was important because it helped made a line between the executive and judicial power branches of the United States. The majority opinion was delivered by Marshall, joined by Paterson, Chase and Washington. With the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional and to enlarge judicial jurisdiction in the Supreme Court. The decision was a 4-0. The judicial philosophy reflected in this case was the branch of judicial power itself and its ancient roots that came into play with this particular case. The concept of judicial review was originated with Marbury because it was the first case to exercise the power. My position on this case is understanding the basis behind the judicial review and jurisdiction as well.
2). Miranda v Arizona (1966)
Context: The fifth amendment requires that individuals arrested for a crime that must be advised of their right to remain silent and to have counsel present.
The holding of the Miranda v Arizona case in 1996, is where the fifth amendment comes into play because of the privilege against self incrimination. The holding is where the law is required to have enforcement is responsible to explain to the suspect that during the interrogation must remain silent and have the right to obtain a lawyer. The Supreme Court of Arizona reversed and remanded. The majority opinion delivered to the by Warren whom was joined by Black, Douglas, Breannan and Fortas; Court is that a suspect must remain silent prior to interrogation. A majority opinionated that once suspects were told and knew they had to remain silent prior to interrogation would have a need and/or demand of a lawyer which was believed to create bigger problems. The judicial philosophy behind the Miranda v Arizona case is Miranda who was prosecuted and retried for a case and for this time they used witnesses instead of confession. That is how the Miranda warning was started because the Miranda case was tied in with three other defendants. The basis behind the case is the judicial restraint used with judicial policy or when the United States was compelled with the Miranda warnings. The position I carry with the context and decision of this court case is where the suspect must remain silent and told about their rights, before I wanted to enter law and become part of a Crime Scene Investigator scene where they would interrogate the suspects to understand more of the situation. I would've had the context behind the Miranda v Arizona case to know why I was telling suspects about their rights prior to an interrogation.
3). Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992)
Context: This case was an unsuccessful attempt to challenge Pennsylvania's restrictive abortion regulations.
The holding of the Planned Parenthood v Casey case in 1992 was in Pennsylvania made a law that required that a spouse to be aware of an abortion which was invalid under the Fourteenth amendment. Basically the Planned parent hood case is where there was a needed consent of an abortion at least 24 hours before it were to occur and a constitutional right to an abortion. The ruling was under provisions. With a vote of 5-4, the majority plurality was delivered by O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter. The Court had a plurality opinion that upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion or not. Also the opinion to uphold the right for analyzing restrictions ; there was a invalid single regulation but upholding the other four. Behind the case, the opinions explained that Roe should not be overturned only if there is a special reason behind the case. The judicial philosophy behind the activist case is where the judicial imperialism falls behind the majority actions. The stare decisis is used behind this case which shows the judicial philosophy and was used to address cases that were not fully developed. My stance behind the case is where I understand that the rights behind abortion because the rights were developed for women who want or may need an abortion for any other reason. I personally understand if a woman were to be raped and has an unwanted child even though every child deserves a right to live.
Context: This case was an unsuccessful attempt to challenge Pennsylvania's restrictive abortion regulations.
The holding of the Planned Parenthood v Casey case in 1992 was in Pennsylvania made a law that required that a spouse to be aware of an abortion which was invalid under the Fourteenth amendment. Basically the Planned parent hood case is where there was a needed consent of an abortion at least 24 hours before it were to occur and a constitutional right to an abortion. The ruling was under provisions. With a vote of 5-4, the majority plurality was delivered by O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter. The Court had a plurality opinion that upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion or not. Also the opinion to uphold the right for analyzing restrictions ; there was a invalid single regulation but upholding the other four. Behind the case, the opinions explained that Roe should not be overturned only if there is a special reason behind the case. The judicial philosophy behind the activist case is where the judicial imperialism falls behind the majority actions. The stare decisis is used behind this case which shows the judicial philosophy and was used to address cases that were not fully developed. My stance behind the case is where I understand that the rights behind abortion because the rights were developed for women who want or may need an abortion for any other reason. I personally understand if a woman were to be raped and has an unwanted child even though every child deserves a right to live.
No comments:
Post a Comment