I’m studying and need help with a Law question to help me learn.
PART I: UNIT PROJECT:
As a journalist, you are constantly writing stories to get people’s attention. Your boss recently asked you to take things to the political sector.
You have been tasked to write an article to address the four amendments that you feel have the most significance on the criminal justice system.
You must include an outline of one landmark case to each of the amendments you choose to write about. Find two with which you agree and explain why the ruling is solid from a legal reasoning perspective. Find two with which you would have ruled opposite of that decision rendered by the Court. Be sure to offer a legal rationale or reasoning (no opinion) for why the Court got it wrong.
Make sure you are clear that these rulings are based on a legal principle and not the facts of the case. Example: Roe v. Wade was not an abortion case, it was about privacy, and the fact that there was a pregnancy is completely secondary. In reality, the pregnant woman, Norma McCorvey, who brought Roe, could not possibly have benefited from the case because she had given birth long before the case arrived in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Your article must be a minimum of two pages in length.
All sources used, including the textbook, must be referenced; paraphrased and quoted material must have accompanying APA citations. Take note that case law gets handled differently in APA style than does an article from a journal.
PART 2: COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION QUESTION AND RESPOND TO 2 CLASSMATES:
Separation of powers is one of the most important principles in American government. Discuss why it is important to have a neutral and nonbiased Supreme Court.
Next, is it possible to have such a thing as a neutral and unbiased court? Explain your position.
Make sure you include and discuss relevant examples to support the discussion.
Please, as always, indicate the person to whom you are posting a reply.
U.S. National Archives. (n.d.). Bill of Rights. Retrieved from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_…
Please include the name of the person or question to which you are replying in the subject line. For example, “Tom’s response to Susan’s comment.”
CLASSMATE 1GRANT FRAKER: Because of our government being set in three separate but equal branches the neutrality of the Supreme Court is of utmost importance. The Supreme Court is the only body that can declare a federal law unconstitutional and when they decide on a case it becomes legal precedent until that decision is overturned by the court at a later time in another court case. Because their rulings affect quite literally the entire country it is important that political beliefs not be an influence on a Supreme Court Justice.
However, it is my opinion that there is no such thing as a neutral and unbiased court. I do not believe that the court as a whole or that the individual justices have an agenda per se, but more that their personal beliefs and morals play a role in how they rule in cases. This can be seen throughout history as we refer to the different courts as “liberal” or “conservative” (in modern political terms). While I firmly believe that the justices try to remove their personal political beliefs and leanings from their rulings and rely solely on their interpretation of Constitution I also understand that how a person was raised and even what law school they attended can play into their interpretation and applications of the law.
CLASSMATE 2 YOLONDA BECK: The US Supreme Court is the highest court in the Judicial branch of government. It rules on cases that can have a major impact on the American people. While the courts duty is to interpret laws through the constitution some may find this difficult to do. Supreme Court justices I believe would like to be neutral, but things that matter today are political and they have their own personal political beliefs and opinions. You can’t interpret something without utilizing your background, personal convictions and morals, experiences, and political beliefs. So is it possible to have such a thing as a neutral and unbiased court my answer to this question is no. All though they have been appointed to a position that is supposed to be a politically neutral judiciary, I can’t see them not having a political opinion. Let’s take abortion rights for example. If a judge does not believe in abortions why would he or she rule in favor of abortions even if it is what the people want.
PART III: COMPLETE 250 WORD ESSAY: What is means to be humble?