Life History of the Chief Justice - Essay Example

? Chief Justice Earl Warren Teacher               Chief Justice Earl Warren Seldom would you find someone who would be able to accomplish much in a lifetime, and even in just 16 years of public service. However, Chief Justice Earl Warren did change American society in that short a time. His reputation precedes him, and even now, many years after his death, we owe so much to the man who gave back the Negro his rights and who granted due process and Miranda rights to the least privileged in our society. As 14th Chief Justice of the United States, Chief Justice Earl Warren was a symbol of equality, justice and goodness. Life History of the Justice Earl Warren was born in Los Angeles, California on March 19, 1891. As a son of a railroad employee, he lived a simple life which was mostly spent in Bakersfield. It was when he was in high school that he began wishing to become a lawyer, especially as he listened to court hearings of criminal cases at the Kern County courthouse in California Warren attended the University of California, Berkeley, where he took up political science and entered the university’s School of Law. He received his B.A. degree in 1912 and on May 14, 1915, he finally became a lawyer and was admitted to the California bar (Earl Warren, 2012). As a lawyer, he had private practice in law offices in San Francisco and Oakland, and this was the only time he was engaged in private practice. From 1920 until 1969 when he retired from the Supreme Court, he had an uninterrupted work in public office (Earl Warren, 2012). As a district attorney at Alameda County, Warren developed a good and popular reputation as a crime fighter. As a prosecutor for 13 years, Warren handled thousands of cases ranging window-breaking to murder, yet there never had been in any of his cases a reversal by a higher court (Earl Warren, 2012). In 1942, Warren became 30th governor of California and earned the reputation of a popular political leader as a Republican but with support from both fellow Republicans and Democrats (Earl Warren, 2012). In 1948, Warren became the Vice-Presidential candidate of the Republican Party on a ticket headed by the popular Thomas E. Dewey, but Warren lost as Dewey lost to Harry Truman (Earl Warren, 2012). In 1953, Warren was appointed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower as the 14th Chief Justice of the United States (Earl Warren, 2012). Tenure on the Court Among the majority opinions that Chief Justice Earl Warren has authored during his tenure in the United States Supreme Court include the desegregation of public schools for blacks and whites, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that allowed blacks to vote for the first time, the institution of the Miranda Warning in 1963, the institution of the due process of law in courts, and the banning of mandatory prayers in schools. Chief Justice Warren was more liberal than his own associate justices and among other justices during his time. One of the most significant court decisions made by Chief Justice Warren was the one involving public school segregation, specifically the Brown v. Board of Education case. This was in fact the very first case that put the Chief Justice to the test. As the Brown case called for the segregation of public schools for black and white students, and considering that Chief Justice Earl Warren was himself against the evil of racial segregation, he talked to the justices regarding the Brown v. Board of Education case. He emphasized to them the notion that racial segregation was a clear violation of the Constitution and that it was simply wrong. The outcome was that eight votes were received in favor of the declaration as unconstitutional of the provisions of the Brown case. In fact, Chief Justice Warren himself kept consulting and revising the basic opinion of the Brown v. Board of Education case until it had been endorsed by the whole Court. The primary effect of the outcome of the Brown case was that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Warren declared that the segregation of public schools for black and white students is unconstitutional (Brown v. Board of Education, 2012). From then on, law enforcement somehow lost some of its focus on racial segregation between against blacks. The decision of the Warren court to desegregate public schools paved the way for the Chief Justice to enlarge the very concept of segregation and applied it to other state actions by striking down racial discrimination in many other areas of the society aside from education. Therefore, one of the achievements of the Warren court which was related to desegregation was the Civil Rights Act of 1964, where Chief Justice Warren and the Warren court pledged full support for the idea that “the federal government has full authority to pass civil rights legislation to secure rights of equal citizenship for all Americans (Balkin, 2002). This is the time when law enforcement began imposing strict non-tolerance of the violation of the rights of blacks. Another achievement was the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This law permitted African Americans to cast their ballot for the very first time. It outlawed the Jim Crow laws that banned voting rights of blacks and mandated racial segregation in all public places in the Southern states from 1876 to 1965. According to Chief Justice Warren, “The right to vote freely for the candidate of one’s choice is of the essence of a democratic society” (Voting Rights, 2012). Based on what Chief Justice Warren said, it does not follow that voting rights are to be restricted in a democratic society. From the ordinary man’s voting rights, the liberal spirit of the Warren court has also brought forth reforms in the House of Representatives, where, in 1962, metropolitan centers and especially middle class suburbs were underrepresented, and where the rural representatives had an overwhelming majority of voice in the house. However, when Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered his speech in one particular court session where he reiterated that “To the extent that a citizen’s right to vote is debased, he is that much less a citizen” (Krabill & Fielding, 2006). After this, there was immediate action from the Warren court and the reapportionment of the legislatures began shortly despite opposition from the rural representatives. The states then complied and obediently reapportioned their legislatures, thus giving another victory to the Warren Court (Reynolds v. Sims, 2012). The reapportionment of the legislative body was indeed another achievement of the Warren Court in its efforts to promote equality in the federal government. Another achievement of the Warren Court that radically changed the Jim Crow police system was the institution of the Miranda Warning in 1963 as a means of protection of the constitutional rights of the suspected individual. As for the Miranda Warning, the Warren Court made it clear that in any case of arrest, it is required that the rights of the person in police custody should be explained to him clearly (Miranda v. Arizona, 2012). The Miranda Warning is actually telling a suspect or anyone arrested and detained by the police that he has a “right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will” (Miranda v. Arizona, 2012). In actual practice, the system of law enforcement radically changed under the provisions made by the Warren Court when it adopted the Miranda Warning, and since then policemen arrested suspect individuals but they could only ask them their name, date of birth and address, for they are warned that anything they say could be used against them in the court of law (Miranda Warning, 2010). The Miranda Warning indeed revolutionized the usual traditional way of putting a suspected individual under arrest. Moreover, Chief Justice Warren upheld justice through the institution of the due process of law. When the Warren Court banned prosecutors from using evidence obtained through illegal searches, Chief Justice Warren has indeed showed not only the United States but also the rest of the world that the America was a true democracy that pushed for the equality of all people even those held under police custody and those suspected of having committed offenses (Mapp v. Ohio, 2012). Furthermore, the Warren Court made the same impression by instituting the due process system in Court when Chief Justice Warren ordered that two lawyers be assigned for the two indigent defendants in a Florida State Court who did not have enough money to get themselves legal counsel and who were denied even by the State Supreme Court the chance to have a lawyer (Gideon v. Wainwright, 2012). Chief Justice Warren justified the due process system through the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that no state should “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (14th Amendment, 2012). Because of these changes in the law, local law enforcers have always had to observe and respect the constitutional rights of the person that they were trying to arrest. Aside from these radical changes in the law, Chief Justice Warren also outlawed mandatory prayer in schools thus giving a right to everyone for them to pray and worship God in their own way and their right to avoid being forced to join prayers in schools (Engel v. Vitale, 2012). Moreover, the Warren court also establishes an individual’s right to privacy, and emphasizes that despite a person’s possible conviction of some public offense, the State must not violate his “right of personal security, personal liberty and private property” (Griswold v. Connecticut, 2012). The first law therefore prevents law enforcers from deliberately forcing or arresting people who are praying in public or in any other place except if they are causing disturbance to the public. Moreover, the second law prevents the police from seizing private property of arrested individuals, gaining access to their private records, or searching their homes for evidence unless warrants are issued for such searches. However, at present, certain instituted laws of the Warren Court, such as the Miranda Warning, were questioned by some experts of the law because the Miranda Warning, for example, prevents the police even from getting confessions from suspects about important information like planned terrorist activities. Moreover, police officers normally “get their rewards for getting convictions, not for being scrupulous about obeying or protecting people’s constitutional rights” (“Reconsidering Miranda”). Such complications regarding the protection of the rights of the suspect possibly cause conflict with the fact that crime should be prevented at all costs. Judicial Philosophy Based on the previously mentioned information on what Chief Justice Earl Warren has done, has repealed and has instituted, one can see that his judicial philosophy can be defined by philosophical and intuitive, and basically not anchored on a the legality of the concept. For example, in the desegregation of public schools and the institution of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it seems obvious that Chief Justice Earl Warren was not after the idea that it has been declared by previous lawmakers that the suffrage of blacks is illegal. Rather, he somehow made his decisions based on his philosophy of equal rights for all people – that even blacks, whose voting rights were legally nonexistent actually deserve to exercise their right to vote in the name of justice and equality. Moreover, it is clear from the laws that he has formulated that Chief Justice Warren was actually a man of his own principles and would definitely stick to these principles – of equality and justice – regardless of what the law has previously dictated. Moreover, the judicial philosophy of Chief Justice Earl Warren was somehow demonstrative of his political convictions. This means that as Chief Justice, he fulfilled his duties to the letter without fear or apprehension that could have been brought about by the dissenting side of the conservatives. If Chief Justice Warren thought that this law should be repealed and this one should be instituted, then he did so without fear of criticism, for he merely believed he was fulfilling his political duty. Chief Justice Warren may have been criticized severely not only by anti-black activists who were against the repeal of the Jim Crow laws, religious conservatives who were against his banning of the mandatory prayer, and conservatives who did not like any more amendments to the constitution, Chief Justice Warren remained strong in his resolve to fulfill his duty and to bring justice and equality to the country. Another thing that Chief Justice Warren displayed during his tenure as a Chief Justice was the idea that he did not value history unless it carried with it a certain significance. For example, he did not care about those who instituted the Jim Crow laws and instead acted upon his principles. He did not particularly value the segregation of public schools and the institution of mandatory prayers in public schools which have long been established in American history. Chief Justice Warren instead could have asked himself whether such laws, regardless of why and how they were instituted, served the people of his time. Therefore, when he realized that a particular law did not anymore serve his people and his principles, he gladly and willingly declared their nullification. Lastly, it seems that a huge part of Chief Justice Warren’s judicial philosophy was grounded on human rights, whoever it is that he is defending. Justice for Chief Justice Warren was something absolute, or something that is not only applicable to a select group of people but to all those who the general population believed did not even anymore deserve justice. In fact, Chief Justice Warren’s decision to institute the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and his decision to abolish the Jim Crow laws speaks of one thing: he thought that blacks also deserved freedom, liberty and the exercise of their rights. It is not that he favored them – it is only that he never thought anyone should be left out when it comes to the imposition of justice and equality. Naturally, however, he did this in the context of the law, for he was faithful to his duties. This means that it would be impossible to think that Chief Justice Warren defended all blacks in courts – for as a man of principles, he defended the innocent and convicted the guilty, whether he be black or white. Chief Justice Warren’s decision to push for the institution of the Miranda Rights and of the due process of law also offers the idea of equal rights to another minority group of people – the arrested suspects. Normally, in the American society and in almost all other societies, there is so much prejudice against suspects and those arrested for they seem to be already labeled as criminals even before they are tried in court. Nevertheless, with his judicial philosophy of justice and equality for all, Chief Justice Warren never fails to grant the same right to suspects and even for convicted criminals. The institution of the Miranda Rights and of the due process of law somehow served as an encouragement to the people especially to the minority group of suspects and convicted criminals that the law was indeed acting justly – maybe not necessarily in their favor but certainly in the name of justice. Finally, the decision of Chief Justice Warren to ban mandatory prayer in public schools may have perhaps ushered the beginning of the recognition of freedom of religion in the United States. The idea of banning mandatory prayer implied that each one – no matter how young or old he or she is – has the right to practice his own faith and not to practice those of others. Chief Justice Warren somehow recognizes the idea that even through faith one may be dominated by another or subjected to control. If equality is indeed absolute as Warren believed it, then it has to apply to all aspects of life and society including the practice of religion. Impact on Criminal Procedure Chief Justice Warren’s move to desegregate public schools of blacks and whites as well as the institution of the Voting Rights of 1965 and the repeal of the Jim Crow laws may have somehow given some white Americans the impression that the Chief Justice was in favor of the blacks or that he was giving them equal treatment especially in criminal procedure. However, such possibilities may not have been entertained by Chief Justice Warren to the point that it would have deterred his decisions towards the imposition of justice and equality for all. He may also have been criticized for granting the Miranda Rights and due process of law to criminals, and he may have been criticized by Christian and conservative groups as well for outlawing mandatory prayer in schools. In short, he may have been silently accused of manipulating criminal procedure in favor of the underdogs of society. However, the accomplishments of Chief Justice Warren as seen in the opinions he authored during his tenure may have certainly gained back the trust not only of the underprivileged but also of everyone else. Public trust must have been restored during his time and once again everyone had faith not only in the justice system and in the government but also in justice itself. Chief Justice Warren was indeed the staunch defender of justice and the personification of a just and moral government. The restoration of public trust must have therefore echoed not only in the justice system but also in other branches of government. In short, perhaps through Warren’s example, people started believing in the government again. Conclusion The Warren Court expanded the meaning of democracy and applied the democratic principles of the Constitution to every law and provision that they formulated. Through the institution of the due process of law, the desegregation of the public schools, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Miranda Rights, and the outlawing of mandatory prayer in public schools, Chief Justice Warren was able to emphasize equality and protection of rights of citizens and while he believed that the law existed in order to protect the rights of the citizens. The approach of Chief Justice Earl Warren was perhaps necessary during his time, when the Jim Crow laws were still in operation and where a great minority – blacks – had their rights often violated. If Chief Justice Warren had not decided to promote desegregation of public schools or had he not established the due process system as well as the Miranda Rights, discrimination against blacks and acts of police brutality would still be existent even now. Moreover, if Chief Justice Earl Warren had not accomplished what he had done, public trust would not have been restored during his time. References 14th Amendment. (2012). Retrieved from Cornell University Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv Balkin, J. M. (2002). History Lesson. Retrieved from Yale University: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/opeds/historylesson1.pdf Brown v. Board of Education. (2012). Retrieved from the National Center for Public Policy Research: http://www.nationalcenter.org/brown.html Earl Warren (1891-1974). (2012). Retrieved from Earl Warren College: http://warren.ucsd.edu/about/biography.html Engel v. Vitale. (2012). Retrieved from Cornell University Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0370_0421_ZS.htm Gideon v. Wainwright. (2012). Retrieved from Cornell University Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0372_0335_ZS.htm Griswold v. Connecticut. (2012). Retrieved from Cornell University Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0381_0479_ZO.html Krabill, K. D. & Fielding, J. A. (2006). One Person, One Vote. Texas Review of Law and Politics, 16 (276-294). Mapp v. Ohio. (2012). Retrieved from Cornell University Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0367_0643_ZS.htm Miranda v. Arizona. (2012). Retrieved from Cornell University Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0384_0436_ZS.htm Miranda Warning. (2010). Retrieved from the Miranda Warning Organization: http://www.mirandawarning.org/ Reconsidering Miranda. (2000). Retrieved from Online News Hour: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june00/miranda_4-19.html Reynolds v. Sims. (2012). Retrieved from Justia US Supreme Court Center: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/377/533/case.html Voting Rights. (2012). Retrieved from the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon: http://aclu-or.org/content/voting-rights Read More