There are 4 questions total and I need a 50 – word response for each.
Question 1
Jodi (and Class), this is the great question, is it not?
When it comes to the federal judiciary, one might ask, "What democracy?" There is no real democracy involved when it comes to selecting the members of the judicial branch. The federal judges and Supreme Court justices are not elected...even though states hold elections for their judges...
The argument behind not electing the federal judges and justices lies in the idea that we do not want them to be pressured by political forces.
They can, assured of their position, rule the way they understand is best. If they were to be elected, they may not be impartial in their judgments. They may instead cater to whatever the public "wants," even if it is unconstitutional or detrimental to the country.
On the flip side, however, if the judges and justices were elected, their political agenda would come out in the campaign process. The people would have a better understanding of the forces behind each individual justice. And the justices' fortunes would not be resting on the agenda of the political elite (those who nominate and confirm them). But would they then be impartial?
If they are elected, should they still have lifetime terms? Why or why not?
If not, how long should their terms be? Would they be eligible for re-election?
What is the best way to ensure an impartial judiciary?
Question 2
First, Angela, I really loved your analogy!
But you also ask a very good question -- are the checks and balances working when it comes to the judicial branch?
So I ask the class to reflect on the Week 2 discussion of checks and balances...
The judicial branch appears to be doing its job in checking the power of the other two branches. If both branches agree -- and are wrong -- the Supreme Court is the last line of defense to protect the people from the power of government.
But the real question about the judiciary's power might instead be: what checks are there on the judiciary? If the Supreme Court makes a decision that the other branches (or the public) do not agree with, how can we overturn them?
With our checks and balances system, it appears that it would be okay for the president to overturn Congress...and okay for the Congress to overturn the president...as long as those decisions can also be overturned. But if the Supreme Court is there to check the power of the other 2 branches, who is there to check the power of the Supreme Court?
If, according to the checks and balances concept, each branch "checks" the power of the other branches -- who checks the power of the judiciary? And how?
How do the other branches check the power of the judiciary?
The president nominates the justices, and the Senate confirms each justice -- but what about after their confirmation?
Class, what checks on judicial power do the other branches have?
Angela Girvin wrote:
I also think the judicial branch has the most power because they get the final say on everything. Do you think there is a way around this branches power? Our nation uses checks and balances to help keep our country balanced and branches checking other branches. If most of the class from what I have read still has a few more to go but most of the class agrees the power for the judicial branch is the most powerful. Does this mean the checks and balances are not working? In any decision some on or some group has to have a final answer or the decision cannot start to work. Do you think it is right for one group to say no I disagree if the other two branches think it was a good idea? It’s like having a teacher that breaks the class in to 2 groups and ask them to come up with class room rules. Both groups agree on a few rules that were listed and the teacher turns and says these are the classroom rule and shows the students. What was the point of the students breaking up in groups and coming up with ideas that both groups agree on if the teacher was going to put up only the rules the/she came up with. Would you call that power balanced?
Questin 3
Abortion is a hotly debated topic -- and I argue that it is highly debated in our country because it has to do with freedom. We like our freedom in this country. We hold it above almost all other values. Pam gives Roe v. Wade as an example of the Court's power...and I would agree that with the Supreme Court deciding things like abortion, they are very powerful.
Consider the next few points I will make about the concepts of "rights" and "freedom" as they have to do with the human condition.
My first point is that science supports the idea that a "fetus" is a unique and separate human life -- not a part of the mother as some like to argue.
From George (2001) (the very short version):
"Unlike the gametes (that is, the sperm and egg), the zygote is genetically unique and distinct from its parents. Biologically, it is a separate organism. It produces, as the gametes do not, specifically human enzymes and proteins. It possesses, as they do not, the active capacity or potency to develop itself into a human embryo, fetus, infant, child, adolescent, and adult...From the beginning, the newly conceived human being, not its mother, directs its integral organic functioning. It takes nourishment and converts it to energy. Given a hospitable environment, it will, as Dianne Nutwell Irving says, 'develop continuously without any biological interruptions, or gaps, throughout the embryonic, fetal, neo-natal, childhood and adulthood stages -- until the death of the organism." (that is the scientific definition of life for every other organism)
So, if the fetus is human -- and alive -- and we agree that a woman is human, the abortion argument is a very difficult one. Someone's freedom will be limited: either the woman carrying the unborn human life, or the unborn human life. The woman's rights almost always prevail. Why do you think even the most stringent anti-abortion laws allow exceptions for rape and endangering the life of the mother? -- because in those cases, the woman had no choice. Freedom is all about having the ability to make choices without coercion. And we value freedom very highly in this country.
The question of abortion is a moral one -- when do we begin to value human life? That is determined by different people in different ways.
The question of abortion, anti-abortion advocates argue, becomes political because the unborn human life has no voice.
Is it up to the government to give such a voice? Should abortion be a political issue? Or a moral one that asks the question: when do you begin to value human life?
Because the science supports the idea that life begins at conception, the only question left is one of how much is any given life valued -- and for what reasons?
What does the class think -- should these decisions be made by the Court?
Citation:
George, Robert P. (ISI Books, 2001). The Clash of Orthodoxies: Law, Religion, and Morality in Crisis.
Pamela Ross wrote:
Additional information for the Abortion laws. the Case was Roe Vs. Wade. the law made abortion legal with in the first trimester of pregnancy. It was the case that made Abortion Legal within the United states in all states. The Court decided that this was to protect the privacy rights of women and the right to choose. it was decided on jan 22,1973.There has been attempts to over turn this but so far it has been upheld. It is still eligal to abort in or after the second trimester. This information can be found at As I stated before I would not choose this option for myself but I don't think I should be able to make that choice for anyone else. If I think about how I would feel if someone else's idea where being forced on to me, I would not like it. This will always be a controversy but the law's are there to protect those who choose this as an option.
Question 4
Angela's example of Brown v. Board of Education is very telling -- It was necessary because the Supreme Court does not always make the "right" decisions!
Remember, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas overturned a previous decision (Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896). The Plessy decision was not a constitutional or "good" decision!
So, how can we know if a decision by the Court is good -- or bad? Is this a matter of opinion? If we rely solely on the Court's discretion (because they know the law best), should we always agree that they made a good decision?
And if a decision is a "bad" decision, what recourse is there? Patience? There were 58 years between the Plessy case (separate but equal) and the Brown case (separate but equal is inherently unequal).
What if a "bad" decision is never overturned?
Angela Girvin wrote:
I do not think the judicial branch is the least dangerous branch. As discussed in the video there was no power giving in the constitution towards the judicial review. If there was no certain powers assigned that would make them the most dangerous branch because there is nothing to follow. The judicial branch is made up by people handpicked by the president. So if the president is a republican the judicial branch could be weighted more towards the republican issues. The judicial branch also has the power to say a law is constitutional or if they want to veto it. That is a big power for no power assigned to the branch. Our country operates under the checks and balances but if this branch was not a power to be balanced when how is each branch balancing out? A few years back the judicial branch picked up the roll that it plays now and it has just stuck with it throughout the times. If no one has challenged this choose by this group just it because it work and that decision balanced out the branches.
The power of the courts can be demonstrated in many ways like court case The Board of Education v. Brown. With this case the courts ruled that education will not be separate any more whites and black can go to the same school. Although some school took a while for this to happen the courts ruled that everyone should receive education together under one roof. Cases more recent also show the power of the courts. If a person does not like there verdict or feel it was not a fair trial they can protest it and the case can go all the way up to the Supreme Court.
The way I look at it the judicial branch holds people’s lives in their hands what they choose to do with that person’s life gives them great power. This is why I think the judicial branch is a dangerous branch. Or like what the video said the judicial branch is like the mafia.