Supreme Courts Reactivity To Popular Will In Modern Times Essays

Supreme Court's Reactivity To Popular Will In Modern Times The Supreme Court safeguards much of its power by creating walls to separate its power from public opinion and political pandering. And while impartiality is undoubtedly the preeminent characteristic desirable in a justice, it is impossible to nominate a human being that is not at least partially fallible and swayed by the society around him. The Warren Court of 1953 to 1969 perfectly illustrates the concurrent philosophies of the Court with the prevailing political party of the day. The growing thought of the time was for increased civil rights and an activist government. President Eisenhower integrated the military and was a strong voice for racial reconciliation. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were liberals who were both interested in achieving the Great Society, with racial equality a chief goal. In 1954 the Warren Court unanimously followed the trend of the time, and ruled in Brown v. Board of Ed. that separating blacks from whites was inherently unequal, thereby paving the way for the entire civil rights movement. In '64 the court continued to reflect public opinion, when it chose to accept the very loose interpretation of the interstate commerce clause to further it's activist agenda in the Heart of Atlanta Motel Case, by saying blacks could not be barred from staying in private establishments. The Warren Court reflected the prevailing Democrats in criminal rights as well. Between '61 and '66 the Mapp, Gideon, and Miranda cases all dramatically increased rights of the accused, simultaneous to the most rampant popularity of the Democrats. The Warren court championed separation of church and state, in Engel v. Vitale ('62) and Abbington v. Schempp ('63), and freedom of speech, in Tinker v. Des Moines ('69), as did its Democratic counterparts in Congress and the White House. Of course it is important to recognize that the Warren Court was not merely a knee jerk respondent to public opinion. Many of its decisions were close, and very unpopular in large chunks of the country. The Republicans and the splintering conservative South found most of these rulings appalling. As George Wallace's successful 3rd party run in '68 proved, there was quite a large percentage of the country that was vehemently against the Warren Court's decisions. Following the example of the Warren Court, one would expect the ensuing Burger Court to be wholly conservative, reversing many of the Warren decisions, under conservative influence by Presidents Nixon, Ford and Reagan. However, such was not wholly true. The Burger Court did take a blow at the liberal affirmative action in Bakke v. California ('78), and affirmed the presidential gay bashing in Bower v. Hardwicke ('86). However, the Burger Court hardly created the rightist haven Nixon and Republicans had been hoping for upon Warren's retirement. The Burger court struck a powerful blow for activism in 1973 when Roe v. Wade when it extended the right to privacy to abortions, making them legal throughout the country. Following that decision the Burger court continued to expand abortion rights. The Burger court also firmly protected encroachment by religion into public schools. Lemon v Kurtzmeyer ('71) finally articulated in no uncertain terms the rules for keeping religion out of schools, and they were strikingly liberal. These decisions were hardly at the behest of the elected government, proving the Supreme Court is hardly willed by what party or what type of people are elected. The perfect example of the Supreme Court's disassociation with the elected government is the unanimous Burger Court ruling in 1974's U.S. v. Nixon, which required Nixon to give over his private tapes. If the Supreme Court is unanimously ruling against the President, a President who appointed justices who would cast votes against him then it becomes quite obvious that the Courts feel little if any overt obligation to protect the interests of those who put them there. Once again, all of these decisions were under much strife, particularly on abortion rights, where the votes were usually as close as possible, 5-4. So to claim that the Court was following anything is outright ludicrous, because had just one justice been inclined differently, this argument would have no legs to stand on. It is the very structure of the

Learning the Causes of Things - Can You Write About It?

Learning the Causes of Things - Can You Write About It?It's often said that the best essay topics for causal analysis are those that can be put into historical and cultural context. The person writing the essay must first learn about the event or situation in question. This should take up at least a couple of days of work, if not longer.People write because they find it necessary to express themselves. It's not easy to understand what anyone is feeling. But learning to interpret events in a way that makes sense is easier than it seems.Collating all of the different factors that come into play in a causal analysis is an interesting and challenging process. This entails looking at each of these factors from many different angles. It is not uncommon for one essay topic to involve at least four different factors. Compiling the data is what makes it challenging.A person has to have a grasp of causality to even think about the subject of causal analysis. And this is more than just the actu al presentation of information, as it also involves examining the role that causal factors play in the world. There are a number of different kinds of causal factors and it is a major challenge to sort them out and present them in an orderly fashion.Causal analysis is based on the idea that there are laws or principles that govern the way we experience reality. This is a big part of the problem, because so many of the things that happen in the world are outside of human control. One cannot merely expect things to happen because the Universe says so.Because of this, it's common for causal analysis to be considered an intellectual pursuit. Like any other academic discipline, the causal analysis field requires careful observation and rigorous research. It is no easy task to examine every aspect of the events and situations in question. But without a modicum of sophistication, this kind of analysis is simply impossible.Any person considering pursuing the study of causal analysis needs t o have a fair understanding of the subject matter. They need to have a keen eye for detail and a good grasp of statistics. One would do well to research the topic thoroughly, even if they choose to work in a particular specialty. A good foundation for this type of work is the work of Charles Darwin.It would also be a wise idea to read a good number of books and articles on the subject of causal analysis. Reading books on this topic is a good way to improve your knowledge. The Internet is a great resource for finding a variety of sources for causal analysis material.