U.S. Supreme Court Justices and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals - Coursework Example

U.S. Supreme Court Justices & Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Introduction: Article III of the United States Constitution provides that ‘The judi­cial Power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court.’ In accordance with this provision and by authority of the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789 the Supreme Court was established (“A Brief Overview”, n.d.). The judiciary, legislative and executive branches form the three separate and independent branches of government. The Supreme Court’s responsibility includes resolving disputes by interpreting and applying the law. The legislative branch (Congress) makes law and the executive branch (headed by the President) enforces law. The founders, knowing that a sovereign judiciary system was vital to the success of a democratic nation, ensured that federal judges would be appointed for life terms. They can be removed from the bench only if impeached and convicted by Congress of ‘Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.’ The current configuration of eight justices and one chief justice was formed in 1869. Congress assigned drafting rules of federal procedure to the Supreme Court in 1934. Republican Presidents appointed seven of the nine current Supreme Court judges (Gill, 2005). This first part of this discussion provides an overview of the current Supreme Court Justices, their legal background and their personal disposition regarding varying issues. It also reviews the disproportionate number of decisions rendered by The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that have been reversed by the Supreme Court. The second part of the discussion examines the possible future ideological direction of the Supreme Court. The Justices: John Roberts The current Chief Justice, John G. Roberts, Jr., joined the Court on September 29, 2005. Following graduation from Harvard Law School, Roberts clerked for Henry Friendly, Second Circuit Court of Appeals, then Justice William Rehnquist, Supreme Court. From 1982-86, he served in the Department of Justice (Reagan Administration). In 1986, Roberts joined a law firm in Washington, DC. There, he frequently argued cases before the Supreme Court. Roberts argued in favor of a government law that banned federally funded family-planning programs for abortion-related counseling when deputy solicitor general in 1990, a position he held from 1989 to 1993. In the ruling, he aligned himself with the Bush administration’s belief that Roe v. Wade should be overruled (Lane, 2005). In 1992, Roberts was nominated by President H.W. Bush but not confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. In 2003, he was nominated again by President G.W. Bush and confirmed to that court. When in private practice, Roberts represented 19 states in an anti-trust suit against Microsoft, a high profile case that lasted from 1998 to 2001. His firm, Hogan and Hartson, acted as the Bush campaign’s legal advisor following the 2000 election during the recount debacle in Florida (Gill, 2005). With an impeccable record, the questions regarding Roberts have only been those of ideology. His Republican Party allegiances are unquestioned but he is not a ‘movement conservative,’ giving conservatives some degree of doubt of his commitment to their philosophies (Lane, 2005). Paul Stevens Associate Justice John Paul Stevens was appointed December 19, 1975 by President Ford. He graduated first in his class from Northwestern University Law School in 1947 then clerked for Supreme Court justice Wiley Rutledge. In 1951, a growing reputation trying antitrust cases led him to start a law firm. In 1969, he became general counsel for a government sponsored commission in Illinois which was scrutinizing the conduct of Supreme Court justices in the state. He was appointed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals by President Richard Nixon in 1970. During his term as Justice, he has allied himself with neither the conservative nor liberal factions of the court, maintaining an independent voting record. Liberal justices were replaced by more conservative appointees in the 1980’s and early 1990’s making Stevens one of the more liberal judges of the court (“John Paul”, 1999). Antonin Scalia Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was nominated by President Reagan and confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court on September 26, 1986 taking the seat vacated when William Rehnquist was elevated to chief justice. He majored in history at Georgetown University graduating as the class valedictorian in 1957. After graduating from Harvard Law in 1961, he joined an Ohio law firm until 1967 when he began teaching law at the University of Virginia. He served in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel from 1974 to 1977 and was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1982 by President Reagan. Scalia is clearly on the conservative wing of the Court and is an outspoken proponent of ‘textualism,’ the concept that the Court should center on the rigid text of law and examine the original meaning when interpreting it. Though Scalia leans heavily conservative, his textual methodology in defense of explicit Constitutional rights has allowed for alliances with liberal justices. As an example, Scalia supports the Court’s position regarding flag burning, that is “a form of political expression protected under the First Amendment” even though he harbors a deep-seeded contempt for anyone that would burn the flag (“Antonin Scalia”, 1999). Anthony Kennedy Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, appointed on February 18, 1988 was Ronald Reagan’s third choice after Robert H. Bork and Douglas Ginsburg were not confirmed by the Senate. He received his B.A. from Stanford University and the London School of Economics, and his LL.B. from Harvard Law School. He was in private practice in San Francisco, California from 1961–1963, as well as in Sacramento, California from 1963–1975. He was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 1975. Kennedy has usually adhered to his conservative ideology but is not confrontational in his approach. Among his more noteworthy legal opinions concerns the constitutionality of drug testing in the workplace. His propensity to avoid wide interpretations of the Constitution has attracted supporters of his opinion, most notably the more liberal wing of the Court, that drug-testing is not an invasion of privacy. He supports the right for a woman to have an abortion, a liberal point of view, but shows his conservative leanings on most issues especially regarding criminal law cases. Kennedy’s calm, affable temperament has allowed him to build alliances for his opinions among the other justices on the court (“Anthony M. Kennedy”, 1999). David Souter Associate Justice David H. Souter, appointed October 9, 1990 was presented by President Bush as a devoted conservative but has been more of a moderate. Some regard him as one of the court’s more liberal justices but most understand him to be the most independent voice on the bench. After graduating from Harvard Law School in 1965, Souter joined a law firm then, in 1971, became the assistant attorney general of New Hampshire. In 1983, he was appointed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. In 1990, President H.W.Bush appointed him to the U.S. Court of Appeals and in the same year to the Supreme Court. In the 1990’s, Souter, together with O’Connor and Kennedy formed a moderate coalition in the Court that prevented the conservative faction’s control (Goldman, 2005). In 2002, he wrote the dissenting opinion regarding the school voucher program arguing that it was in clear violation of the First Amendment, a liberal stance. However, he joined a majority ruling that decided cities do have rights of eminent domain and they may seize property needed for development, a controversial issue in which Souter tipped the balance to the conservative opinion of the court (Head, 2006). Clarence Thomas Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed October 23, 1991, has demonstrated a lack of his own judicial philosophy and consistently follows the opinions of Scalia (“Clarence Thomas”, 2003). A column was written about Thomas when he attended a meeting of black conservatives in Washington D.C. in1980 which brought him to the attention of President Reagan who offered him a job at the Department of Education. In 1990, President Bush appointed him to the Washington D.C U.S. Court of Appeals and in 1991, the Supreme Court. Although Thomas has been openly opposed to affirmative action and racial equality-based programs, he has been the recipient of their benefits. He was accepted to Yale Law School because of its affirmative action program and his race (African American) played a pivotal role in his Supreme Court nomination (“Clarence Thomas”, n.d.). Ruth Bader Ginsburg Appointed by President Clinton, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined the Court on August 10, 1993 and is an ardent advocate of abortion rights. Thought by many to be the most liberal of the justices, Ginsberg frequently cites foreign law in her judicial opinions, in sharp contrast to Scalia’s textualist stance (“Ruth Bader”, 2006). She graduated valedictorian from Columbia Law School. During the 1960’s and 1970’s, she championed woman’s rights issues and would argue six cases before the Supreme Court. President Carter nominated Ginsburg to the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit in 1981. While leaning towards the liberal side of the Courts political spectrum, Ginsburg has not hesitated to vote with her conservative colleagues (“Ruth Bader Ginsberg”, n.d.). Stephen Breyer Another Clinton appointee, Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer came to the Supreme Court on August 3, 1994. His nomination was widely supported by liberals and conservatives alike and is considered by many to be one of the more intellectual justices (“Stephen Breyer”, 2006). Breyer attended Stanford and Oxford before graduating from Harvard Law. He clerked for Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg in 1964 and 1965 then was employed in the anti-trust division of the Justice Department prior to becoming legal counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee. During the Reagan administration, Breyer sat on the federal appeals court and U.S. Sentencing Commission. He has favored restrictions on abortion and advocates restricting regulations on business as well (“Stephen Breyer”, n.d.). Samuel Alito Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., the most recent appointment, took his place on the Court January 31, 2006 by President Bush after serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, for about 15 years. A Yale Law School graduate, he has stated that the Constitution does not protect a woman’s right to an abortion (“Samuel Alito”, n.d.). Most anticipate that Alito will vote with ultra-conservatives Scalia and Thomas (“Samuel Alito”, 2006). Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Of the cases that the Supreme Court has heard emanating from federal appeals courts, the Ninth Circuit, located in San Francisco, California, has supplied much more than its share, nearly a third of the total. In addition, the Ninth Circuit has accounted for more than a quarter of the Supreme Court’s total docket. Some would argue that this is because of the large area that falls under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit; however, the court hears less than 18 percent of the nation’s cases at the federal appellate level. Others attribute the Ninth Circuit’s physical locations lays past the ‘wild west’ in the very liberal San Francisco, therefore its interpretation of law is outside the ‘norm’ of the country. This opinion is at least somewhat validated when considering that more decisions handed down by the Ninth Circuit, a full third, have ultimately been reversed by the Supreme Court, more than any other federal court in the country. Additionally, the Supreme Court has issued proportionately more reprimands to the Ninth Circuit and denunciations of its decisions. “The language the Supreme Court uses in making those reversals demonstrates just how far and how often the Ninth Circuit strays from long and firmly established law, precedent, and Supreme Court interpretation” (Cox et al, 2004). The Supreme Court has been relatively stable, ideologically speaking, since 1994, when Justice Breyer joined the Court bench. Since that time, 143 of the Ninth Circuit’s decisions have been reversed by the higher court which is considerably more than any other federal court. The current members of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and their date of confirmation are: James R. Browning, 1976, Joseph Tyree Sneed III, 1987, John T. Noonan, Jr., 1985, William A. Fletcher, 1998, Marsha L. Berzon, 2000, Carlos T. Bea, 2003 (“United States … Ninth Circuit”, 2006). Supreme Court Politics While presidents might deny that they nominate judges based on political motivations, the political opinions of justices have proven to be a significant aspect in their varying interpretations of constitutional law. For example, the conservative arm of the Court normally favors a broad view of states’ rights and seldom votes to reverse the criminal convictions of lower courts.  Those of conservative ideology have a negative opinion of affirmative action laws, are likely to decline most substantive due process allegations and are also unwilling to expand individual liberties. The moderate and liberal members of the Court take the opposite perspective on these issues. Another method of examining the political divide amongst Supreme Court justices is by their level of ‘judicial activism.’ This term refers to those who are disposed to invalidate acts and laws of federal and state legislatures. Both conservative and liberal justices are activists.  Scalia and Thomas are conservative while Ginsberg is a liberal activist. Many suggest that while Chief Justice Roberts is a conservative, he will promote judicial restraint (Linder, 2006). Conservative Future of the Court During his term as President, Bush has thus far filled two vacancies in the Supreme Court with the moderately conservative Roberts and the ultra-conservative Alito. Three more vacancies could open within the final two years of the Bush Presidency. Stevens is 86 years old and Ginsburg is 73. Both are in poor health and have hinted about retiring from the Court. These justices represent the liberal wing of the Court and if their seats were to be replaced by Bush appointees, the ideological balance of the Court that essentially has been in effect from 1994 to 2004 would then lean heavily conservative. The president that has displayed a total lack of respect for civil rights and civil liberties has appointed two justices including the Chief Justice and may have the ability to add more. A telling illustration of the Court’s future ideological direction if Bush appoints justices to replace Stevens and Ginsburg, Bush named Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, the two least respected and most openly ultra-conservative justices on the Supreme Court bench, as the justices he admired above any other. Future Bush appointees could tip the balance so far to the right, laws regarding such issues as civil rights, the environment, hate crimes, reproductive rights and workplace conditions could be drastically and negatively affected for many decades to come (Libert, 2004). Even if Bush appoints no more justices during his term in office, the delicate balance had already tipped towards the conservatives. Liberals shudder with the knowledge that Scalia will be the most tenured justice of the new conservative majority. Scalia and the New Majority Justice Scalia has announced that he was considering retirement which would leave Bush with possibly three appointments to make prior to 2009. If Scalia were to step down, the philosophical balance of the court would likely not be affected in the slightest because Bush would replace Scalia’s ultra-conservative ideology with a clone such as another Alito who has earned the nickname ‘Scalito’ because his judicial philosophies are strikingly similar to Scalia. However, the rumor of Scalia’s possible exit from the court is largely based on his comments prior to the 2000 presidential election. At that time, he was no longer interested in being of the minority opinion of the Court and indicated he might step down if Gore were elected. Bush won, his appointments favored Scalia’s conservative point of view and now he is the senior member of the conservative wing in the Court. Roberts, in essence, replaced the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, both conservative-minded but Alito replaced Justice Sandra Day O’Connor who was considered moderate. According to ACLU National Legal Director Steven R. Shapiro, “Justice O’Connor has provided more than a swing vote, she has been a moderating voice on critical civil liberties issues ranging from race to religion to reproductive freedom. Judge Alito’s position on each of these issues has been more hostile to civil liberties than positions taken by Justice O’Connor” (“Battle Lines”, 2005). The ideological balance in the Court is now decidedly conservative. To predict this year’s case outcomes of the Court, the best barometer of measurement will likely involve correctly predicting how Scalia will rule. The 2006-2007 session of the Supreme Court is expected to rule on several law topics such as racial equality, search and seizure, free speech, death penalty, religious freedom, immigrants and prisoner rights, education, abortion and campaign finance reform. Scalia dismisses the idea that the Constitution mandates a rigid separation between church and the state. The intent of the First Amendment, according to Scalia, was to prevent the government from endorsing a national religion. He has defended the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in public schools and has regularly voted to permit the government to sponsor religious endeavors (Savage, 2007). The majority opinion on these pivotal topics is likely to mirror Scalia’s views. The ‘New Look’ Court While testifying at their Senate confirmation hearings, both recently appointed Justices, Roberts and Alito agreed that prior Court decisions “should not be overruled merely because newly appointed Justices might have reached a different result had they been on the Court at the time.” 14) ACLU 2006 This legal principle will undergo many serious tests this Court term. With regard to education and abortion, the Court will revisit legal questions it ruled on just a couple of years ago. The Court maintained that Michigan Law School could apply the affirmative action model and allow race to be an aspect of the school’s admissions process and rejected the State of Nebraska’s attempt to prohibit ‘partial-birth’ abortions. Both of these decisions were decided 5-4 with the recently retired moderate Justice O’Connor casting the deciding vote. It will be known quite soon if the Court will remain committed to these decisions. If so, it will uphold the lower court decisions that supported affirmative action and struck down a federal ban on abortion as well as other issues. Justice Kennedy will play a key role in mapping the Court’s ideological direction. Prior to Alito, when the Court was evenly divided, Kennedy cast the decisive vote on cases pertaining to the death penalty, biased redistricting and the exclusionary rule. His vote will again be pivotal in this term as the members of the Court debate race-based initiatives and abortion. He dissented in the Michigan Law School affirmative action ruling but has been a supporter of the Court’s decision regarding Roe v. Wade. Justice Kennedy’s “institutional role as the Court’s ideological fulcrum has undeniably changed since Justice O’Connor’s retirement” (“Abortion and Education”, 2006). Justice Alito was not a member of the Court for the entire term last year. This year will provide a more clearly defined idea of how and in what philosophical direction the Roberts Court will rule. Other Cases of Interest A case not yet on the Supreme Court’s docket but soon to be involves the recent ruling by a federal appeals court which ruled U.S. detainees, specifically the ones at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have no Constitutional right to contest their incarceration to federal courts. This appeals court ruling was deemed as a triumph for the Bush administration but a defeat for the concept of basic human rights and the Constitutionally guaranteed right to a speedy trial. Prisoners are not allowed to petition a court for a writ of habeas corpus and can be held in prison indefinitely without being formerly charged (White, 2007). This certainly seems to defy at least the spirit of the Constitution if not the letter of it. The case will clearly show the ideological divide within the Court. The Court’s docket this term involves the First Amendment right to free speech. An Alaskan student displayed a pro-drug sign during a public, not school-sponsored event and was punished by the school district. If the Court decides for the school district, the implications are enormous because it would allow all school districts in the nation to prohibit any type of speech or expression by students they consider offensive whether on or off campus. This would include the ability for school districts to prohibit speech or expression that advocates the Christian belief.  The Court will also hear a case that challenges the faith-based initiatives program promoted by President Bush (“American Center”, 2007). Conclusion The decisions of the Supreme Court usually are dependent on the ideological make-up of the nine member justices. With the only two liberal-leaning justices on the edge of retirement and a conservative president in office, the balance of philosophy could potentially favor the conservative wing of the Court by an overwhelming margin. This would be a major setback for civil liberties and human rights in the country. However, if Ginsberg and Stevens were to stay on for two more years and a liberal president elected in 2008, then their seats would be filled by like-thinking justices. The Court would still be conservative leaning but not conservative-lopsided thus socially progressive issues such as allowing stem cell research and the protection of civil liberties as well as the historically essential rights to free speech and a speedy trial would have the chance to survive the onslaught of a conservative ideology. References “Abortion and Education Highlight New Supreme Court Docket; National Security Cases Wait in the Wings.” (September 20, 2006). ACLU. Available March 3, 2007 from “American Center for Law and Justice Supreme Court Cases.” (2007). American Center for Law and Justice. Available March 3, 2007 from “Anthony M. Kennedy” (1999). Supreme Court History.org. Available March 3, 2007 from “Antonin Scalia.” (1999). Supreme Court History.org. Available March 3, 2007 from “Battle Lines Over Alito are Drawn.” (October 31, 2005). ABC News. Available March 3, 2007 from “(A) Brief Overview of the Supreme Court.” (n.d.). The Supreme Court of the United States. Available March 3, 2007 from “Clarence Thomas.” (May 13, 2006). Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Available March 3, 2007 from . “Clarence Thomas.” (n.d.). OYEZ U.S. Supreme Court Media. Available March 3, 2007 from Cox, Reid Alan; T. Marshall Manson and Sam Batkins   (September 30, 2004). “An Analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Treatment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.” Center for Individual Freedom Foundation. Available March 3, 2007 from Gill, Kathy. (October 31, 2005). “U.S. Supreme Court Overview.” About U.S. Politics: Current Events. Available March 3, 2007 from Goldman, Jerry. (2005). “David H. Souter.” OYEZ Project. Available March 3, 2007 from Head, Tom. (2006). “Associate Justice David Souter.” About Civil Liberties. Available March 3, 2007 from “John Paul Stevens.” (1999). Supreme Court History.org. Available March 3, 2007 from Lane, Charles. (September 6, 2005). “John G. Roberts Jr.” Washington Post. Libert, Leanne. (November 8, 2004). “The Future of the Supreme Court.” Now. Available March 3, 2007 from Linder, Doug. (2006). “The Supreme Court in the American System of Government.” Exploring Constitutional Conflicts. Kansas City, MO: University of Missouri – Kansas City. “Ruth Bader Ginsburg.” (May 13, 2006). Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Available March 3, 2007 from . “Ruth Bader Ginsburg.” (n.d.). OYEZ U.S. Supreme Court Media. Available March 3, 2007 from “Samuel Alito.” (May, 2006). Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Available March 3, 2007 from . “Samuel Alito.” (n.d.). OYEZ U.S. Supreme Court Media. Available March 3, 2007 from Savage, David G. (February 21, 2007). “High Court Power Shift May Favor Justice Scalia.” Los Angeles Times. Available March 3, 2007 from “Stephen Breyer.” (2006). Infoplease. Pearson Education, publishing as Infoplease. Available March 3, 2007 from . “Stephen G. Breyer.” (n.d.). OYEZ U.S. Supreme Court Media. Available March 3, 2007 from “United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.” (2006). Wikipedia, The Free Encycopedia. Available March 3, 2007 from White, Josh. (February 21, 2007). “Guantanamo Detainees Lose Appeal.” Washington Post. Available March 3, 2007 from Read More