- Read online bio's of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices. What do you find interesting about their backgrounds? Pick one of the Justices, read about cases this Justice has written (majority or dissent) and explain whether you agree or disagree with his/her judicial philosophy.
In the biographies that I read the thing that I found most interesting was that very little was actually said about them personally. It seems as if they have had a very full career but very little personal time to focus on family. Of course, I’m sure that there is a lot that is not said about the Justices for protection of privacy.
Antonin Scalia decision in Alexander v. Sandoval was very interesting. From what I can understand about the case, the case was in regards to the Alabama Department of Public Safety and their decision to have all state driver’s license issued in English. Sandoval claimed that this was a basis of discrimination and the courts upheld that decicision but Scalia reversed it. I do personally agree with Scalia because I think that English should be the primary language and any one that lives in the United States
- Is Judicial Review a power that should be exercised regularly or sparingly? Why?
Judicial review is the authority of the courts to declare laws passed by Congress and acts of the executive branch to be unconstitutional (text). Based on the amount of power this gives the federal judiciary, I think that this is a power that should be used sparingly. I think that there should be checks and balances but I do not believe that there should be such power granted to one particular group of people. I think instead that there should be a strict limit of those powers and that there should also be a checks and balances placed on them. To say that one group of people knows what is best is an injustice in itself in my opinion.
- Is it the job of the High Court to apply the Constitution in light of the intent of the framers of the Constitution (strict construction) or should they interpret the Constitution in light of changes in society/technology (living Constitution)? Why?
I think that the High Courts have to look at both in order to render fair and equitable decisions. The framers of the Constitution obviously made some very good points in the drafting of the Constitution but as times have changed so have the ways that some of those points were made must be taken into consideration. With the way that the Constitution was written, it leave room for the changes in society and we should respect that. Thus, that is why we have amendments. Obviously some of the points were written with the current place and time in mind and did not take into consideration the changing of those points over the years. Thus we have to look at both sides of the coin always in order to determine the intent and decision to move forward.
Robert Cook, Tinisha Key, Ed King
