# of Words: 552

I'd like for the readers to consider this question quite closely. Our Supreme Court is composed of the Chief Justice of the USA along with a number of Associate Justices that are designated by Congress. The present number of Associate Justices is put to eight according to the US Code. The power to nominate a justice lies completely the President along with the consent of the Senate.

Judges are human just like anyone else and this trait makes them less than ideal in most people's eyes. From the American social structure any qualified individual can be appointed as a judge.

It is vital to mention that the majority of these appointments are both party and coverage assignments. Regrettably, these nominations do not need to be considered one of the nation's foremost authorities in jurisprudence. Constitutionally, there exists no demand for the president to appoint the most brilliant lawyer in the nation; actually a justice need not be an attorney in any way. You hear me correct, our Constitution stipulates hardly any requirements for the position of Supreme Court Justice. Although the position is one of the maximum court designations in the nation there are small prerequisites essential for the job.

The United States constitution does not even state that the justices under consideration has to be native-born taxpayers. There are not any provisions supplied which indicates a specific era, no education necessity or profession attributes. Historically half of the 110 justices have been born out of America. These justices do not have to be attorneys or perhaps graduates of a law school. Traditionally, nevertheless our justices have had professional legal training in one manner or another. The only legal brink we encounter is a justice that is nominated has to vow to uphold and apply the royalties as put forth by our constitution.

There are numerous theories that follow this line of thinking as well. The primary theory which springs to mind is "Minimalism" argues that judges must place a wide berth upon precedent and should only make minor modifications to constitutional laws. The role of our judiciary has been debated for centuries thanks to the lack of mention of its assigned tasks within the Constitution. An understanding of the Constitution is paramount in my decision to support judicial restraint. I select this coverage because I am a firm believer that our forefathers created a document that essentially addresses the majority of the values and freedoms presented to guy.

We view these rights as fundamental and they should not be altered or changed at will. After completing the correct research, I've concluded that a judge ought to have a mix of both judicial restraint and activism. It would be foolish to side with one or the other consistently. An example, would be in which the Supreme Court once dominated our minimum wage laws infringe upon one's right to pay off our own business contracts. No judge must lie upon one side or the other of the spectrum. Too much legislative restraint is likely to duplicate decisions such as Dredd Scott v.

Sandford in which African-American's were denied equal rights. On the other hand too much judicial activism may contribute to more decisions similar to Roe v. Wade at which the decision was based upon the implied constitutional right to privacy. Copyright @2012 Joseph Parish.

Related Papers

America Needs a Variable Minimum Wage

Although the federal minimum wage has remained at $7.25 a hour since 2009, most Americans are currently covered by greater minimums determined by local and state legislation - from Los Angeles to New York country to Washington, D.C. Organized labour and anti-poverty classes continue to drive for $15 a hour as the new standard for all workers paid hourly, although given Republican control of Congress that possibility appears dim. While the concept of raising the minimum wage is broadly popular, a......Read More

An Analysis of the Society's Inequalities and the Emotional Argument for the Minimum Wage Reward

Calls for wage increases-at the federal, state, and local levels-are based on the premise that increases in the minimum wage will probably improve the economic well-being of workers. One area of attention in the discussion is whether a minimum wage increase could actually impact many workers. Many skeptics have argued that only a very modest share of workers actually get the minimum wage, and furthermore, that many of these workers are not fighting adults, however, rather teenagers from wealthy......Read More

The Pros and Cons of Raising the Federal Minimum Wage

After two weeks of detailing the arguments for and against increasing the federal minimum wage - interviewing economists and policy specialists, poring over a flood of mails by workers and business owners, reading scads of papers pro and con - I've reached an important conclusion: This matter is really complex. I realize that doesn't sound significant, but in the context of our current national debate over the minimum wage, it is really very fundamental. That's the reason Democrats, by President......Read More

Related Topics