I wanted to say thank you to the class for freely sharing your thoughts and opinions. I know that is hard for some people to do, but I appreciate all of you that have taken the time to read and post on my blog this semester. I also enjoyed reading all of your blogs throughout the semester. Thank you!
I also want to Thank You Professor Whaley!! I have learned and retained a tremendous amount of information from this class under your direction, and you have actually peaked my interest in a lot of things that I really didn't pay attention to before. I don't think I could have had a better Professor for this class, and this quickly become one of my favorite classes this semester. I have enjoyed having you as my Professor and Thank You for the learning experience! It's been a pleasure!
Friday, May 3, 2013
~ The Judiciary ~
1.) Read online bios of the US Supreme Court Justices. What do you find interesting about their backgrounds? Pick one of the Justices, read about cases this judge has written (majority or dissent) and explain whether you agree or disagree with his/her judicial philosophy.
In reading the bios about the Supreme Court Justices, I learned that those who are nominated and confirmed to sit on the benches are all extremely qualified, well-educated and know the ins and outs of all kinds and divisions of law. They are all well-educated and each has years of experience on the many different court levels in this country. Some of them started their journey to their Supreme Court seats by being law clerks and moving up the ladder form there. Many of them received their law degrees from Harvard: John G. Roberts, Elana Kagen, Antonin Gregory Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Gerald Breyer. The remaining Justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Sonia Sotomayor, were Yale educated. All of the Justices hold multiple degrees and some of them graduated "cum laude" status. Some of them, Anthony Kennedy, John G. Roberts, and Elana Kagen, are professors of Law in addition to their seats on the Supreme Court. All of them have United States Court of Appeals experience before being nominated and confirmed as Supreme Court Justices.
I read some of the written opinions of Sonia Sotomayor, who is one of the newest members of the Supreme Court Justices, and found that for the most part, I agree with her decisions. I read Hodge v. Kentucky, which was a dissenting opinion for her, and I agree with her dissent. Hodge was a Tennessee man who murdered a Kentucky Doctor and his daughter and stole $2 million dollars from them and went on a lavish spending spree from Kentucky to Florida with his girlfriend, who happens to be a Roane County native, her two children, and two additional accomplices in the crime. The issue brought before the Court involved Hodge not being properly represented at his sentencing hearing by an attorney, and information regarding how he was raised in an extremely abusive home, being introduced to drugs, prostitution by his mother, alcohol and extreme brutality. He was often injured in beatings he would receive from the men on his mothers life, as well as watching his mother beaten many times and being afraid to check her because he was scared she was dead. Hodge filed the petition because he received the death penalty in the case and he felt all of this should have been brought to the attention of the court during his sentencing hearing, but wasn't. He claimed ineffective council for the sentencing hearing. The Court of Appeals denied the petition and agreed with the original ruling on the case, and felt that the same sentence would have been imposed if the information was shared. Hodge filed with the Supreme Court and they upheld the lower court decision. Sotomayor and 2 other Justices didn't agree with the majority vote and voiced her opinion through a dissent where she argued that there was no way of knowing whether the sentencing would have been the same or not because, basically, no one could decide how the minds of the jury would have voted if they were aware of the horrific years of abuse that Hodge was subject too. I agree with her on this dissent. One person on the jury could have made the difference in life or death in this case, and without hearing the additional evidence at the time of sentencing, how can we know how a jury would have voted. I also feel that the jury may have felt that Hodge had some sort of mental issue or possibly even an old head injury that could have caused his train of thinking. He was involved in a lifetime of crime starting as a juvenile around the age of 12. Before this age, he was described as a good kid, who was often quiet and a bit on the shy side. Maybe something happened when he was at the age of 12 that all of a sudden changed him. Maybe a head injury, and possibly rape, as it was reported that one of the boyfriends was raping and molesting one of Hodges' sisters. I think the jury should have been made aware of the years of extreme abuse that Hodges suffered, because I am sure it could have affected him in such a way, or he could have had a head injury from one of the beatings to cause him to change.
2.) Is Judicial Review a power that should be recognized regularly or sparingly? Why?
I think that Judicial Review should be used on a regular basis. It is part of the "checks and balances" system that this country is based on, so that one branch of government doesn't become too powerful and over take the other branches of our government, putting our government out of balance.
3.) 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 it is the job of the High Court to interpret the Constitution, both, as a living Constitution and as a strict construction, but respect our basic rights as citizens. I don't think it is reasonable in this day and time to expect anyone to view the Constitution under strict construction due to the growth in population and all of the technological advances. I do believe that the both methods should be used in interpreting the Constitution, but their should be a fine balance when doing so, and our basic rights as American citizens should be protected at all costs. I feel that using both ways to interpret the Constitution is another way of keeping a "checks and balances" system in place within the court systems.
* Blog Comments *
Ashley Pelfrey
Gabby Miller
Albert Munoz
In reading the bios about the Supreme Court Justices, I learned that those who are nominated and confirmed to sit on the benches are all extremely qualified, well-educated and know the ins and outs of all kinds and divisions of law. They are all well-educated and each has years of experience on the many different court levels in this country. Some of them started their journey to their Supreme Court seats by being law clerks and moving up the ladder form there. Many of them received their law degrees from Harvard: John G. Roberts, Elana Kagen, Antonin Gregory Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Gerald Breyer. The remaining Justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Sonia Sotomayor, were Yale educated. All of the Justices hold multiple degrees and some of them graduated "cum laude" status. Some of them, Anthony Kennedy, John G. Roberts, and Elana Kagen, are professors of Law in addition to their seats on the Supreme Court. All of them have United States Court of Appeals experience before being nominated and confirmed as Supreme Court Justices.
I read some of the written opinions of Sonia Sotomayor, who is one of the newest members of the Supreme Court Justices, and found that for the most part, I agree with her decisions. I read Hodge v. Kentucky, which was a dissenting opinion for her, and I agree with her dissent. Hodge was a Tennessee man who murdered a Kentucky Doctor and his daughter and stole $2 million dollars from them and went on a lavish spending spree from Kentucky to Florida with his girlfriend, who happens to be a Roane County native, her two children, and two additional accomplices in the crime. The issue brought before the Court involved Hodge not being properly represented at his sentencing hearing by an attorney, and information regarding how he was raised in an extremely abusive home, being introduced to drugs, prostitution by his mother, alcohol and extreme brutality. He was often injured in beatings he would receive from the men on his mothers life, as well as watching his mother beaten many times and being afraid to check her because he was scared she was dead. Hodge filed the petition because he received the death penalty in the case and he felt all of this should have been brought to the attention of the court during his sentencing hearing, but wasn't. He claimed ineffective council for the sentencing hearing. The Court of Appeals denied the petition and agreed with the original ruling on the case, and felt that the same sentence would have been imposed if the information was shared. Hodge filed with the Supreme Court and they upheld the lower court decision. Sotomayor and 2 other Justices didn't agree with the majority vote and voiced her opinion through a dissent where she argued that there was no way of knowing whether the sentencing would have been the same or not because, basically, no one could decide how the minds of the jury would have voted if they were aware of the horrific years of abuse that Hodge was subject too. I agree with her on this dissent. One person on the jury could have made the difference in life or death in this case, and without hearing the additional evidence at the time of sentencing, how can we know how a jury would have voted. I also feel that the jury may have felt that Hodge had some sort of mental issue or possibly even an old head injury that could have caused his train of thinking. He was involved in a lifetime of crime starting as a juvenile around the age of 12. Before this age, he was described as a good kid, who was often quiet and a bit on the shy side. Maybe something happened when he was at the age of 12 that all of a sudden changed him. Maybe a head injury, and possibly rape, as it was reported that one of the boyfriends was raping and molesting one of Hodges' sisters. I think the jury should have been made aware of the years of extreme abuse that Hodges suffered, because I am sure it could have affected him in such a way, or he could have had a head injury from one of the beatings to cause him to change.
2.) Is Judicial Review a power that should be recognized regularly or sparingly? Why?
I think that Judicial Review should be used on a regular basis. It is part of the "checks and balances" system that this country is based on, so that one branch of government doesn't become too powerful and over take the other branches of our government, putting our government out of balance.
3.) 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 it is the job of the High Court to interpret the Constitution, both, as a living Constitution and as a strict construction, but respect our basic rights as citizens. I don't think it is reasonable in this day and time to expect anyone to view the Constitution under strict construction due to the growth in population and all of the technological advances. I do believe that the both methods should be used in interpreting the Constitution, but their should be a fine balance when doing so, and our basic rights as American citizens should be protected at all costs. I feel that using both ways to interpret the Constitution is another way of keeping a "checks and balances" system in place within the court systems.
* Blog Comments *
Ashley Pelfrey
Gabby Miller
Albert Munoz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)