Link to Article 2
Link to Article 3
On Monday, the Supreme Court's new term has started and since this is Justice Gorsuch's first full term there is going some very significant cases that the Supreme Court has to decide on. They will be deciding on issues such as the travel ban, political gerrymandering and the one involving the Baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple.
Last year the Supreme Court was cautious on taking important cases prior to the nomination of Gorsuch. The National Review had said the "prospect of 4-4 splits [prevented] decision in the most difficult and contentious cases". In this new term the court is going to take some cases that they were careful on taking the last term. I am not too familiar with Gorsuch but from what I've heard, he is a conservative voter which is a big deal since now decisions are less likely to be splits. However, based on what I have read from ABC news I can assume that Gorsuch is actually against Judicial activism. He strongly supports the limiting of judicial role which advocated for what the law demands. What are your thoughts?
7 comments:
It is extremely good that the Supreme Court will again be taking on difficult and pressing issues such as the ones you mentioned. In terms of the newest justice, Justice Gorsuch, I think it is too early to say what his effect on the Supreme Court will be, but I am worried as he moves into his first term. Although the Supreme court should try to sometimes try to stay as close to current laws and rulings,sometimes judicial activism is necessary. There are some cases, such as Obergefell v. Hodges, that could be considered "Judaical Activism" but was an extremely important decision in giving equal rights and protection to a minority in the United States. If Justices on the Supreme Court are not willing to make more forward-thinking decisions like this, so minorities might have a harder time receiving equal protection under the law.
With so many controversial issues and actions in both society and politics, I think its very important that the Supreme Court is able to come to a decision over these divisive issues. Like Lydia said, its too early in Gorsuch's term to see the impact of his appointment, however, I think that judicial activism should be used sparingly. Judicial activism can be used to evaluate the ethics of an issue, especially with very sensitive and controversial issues that require much care, but the Supreme Court's main job is to maintain an objective view and evaluation of the Constitution and laws. Allowing judges to rule based on their own views rather than actual laws essentially nullifies the laws and erodes the Supreme Court's fundamental role in the government.
I believe it is a significant gain for the country now that the Supreme Court has added their last Justice. This will allow more important cases to be decided upon, and the wheels in our government can keep turning. Gorusch may be a conservative, making him an unpopular candidate especially in the Bay Area, but having someone to be the swing vote in these important cases will progress our government and the interpretations of our constitutional rights. Having the judicial branch is imperative in the system of checks and balances our country requires, and now that there is someone to prevent gridlock, it can continue to advance.
I am in accordance with the previous comments that look optimistically towards the future of the Supreme Court debating contentious issues with a swing vote coming into play. Previous comments are right in that it's early to definitively say how Gorsuch will affect the court; however, considering his conservative background, it's safe to assume he will swing the vote in that direction. While Eric is right that it is the Supreme Court's job to stay objective and only evaluate cases on the basis of the constitution, it is inevitable that personal opinions will come into play, which is why we even distinguish between conservative and liberal judges in the first place. In this regard, As Lydia mentioned, I believe judicial activism is important for certain cases that strive to, for example, defend minority rights, as we've seen in the past with Brown v Board or Roe v Wade.
While I agree that it is beneficial to have all nine judges back on the Supreme Court, I do think Gorsuch's influence on the Supreme Court's ruling can be predicted. He has ruled the same with the most conservative colleague for every single case he has taken since the position was appointed to him as of July. While there is some degree of uncertainty, I think it can be reasonably inferred that he will shift the Supreme Court's political standpoint toward the conservative end.
Like everyone else, I agree that it’s great that the Supreme Court will be deciding on highly relevant societal and political issues in the new term. The presence of Gorsuch as the new Supreme Court justice will prevent 4-4 split decisions from occurring, so it’s likely that the upcoming term will come with significant decisions. In addition, on the subject of judicial activism, it seems to me that judicial interpretations require at least some degree of personal or political opinion. It’s likely -- even expected -- that Supreme Court justices partake in some form of judicial activism, though their decisions should fundamentally be based on the text of the Constitution.
I agree with the comments above regarding the change from the 8 to 9 person jury in that there will be much less split decisions and political gridlock. However, I agree with Caroline in the fact that many cases will now be biased towards more conservative views, which may cause conflict for many liberals.
Post a Comment