POLI 330N Week 5 Discussion Question 2, The Supreme Court

Great discussion all!\

Sometimes our moral reasoning may conflict with legal reasoning. With this in mind, let’s consider the concepts of gun control and also free speech. When the second amendment was adopted (the right to bear arms) the Founding Fathers wanted to protect the common citizen from being overrun by the government. But when it was created, we did not have guns such as AK-47s or other assault rifles. Additionally, when the first amendment was adopted (which includes, among others, freedom of speech and association), the Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that all citizens had the right to associate with whomever they please, express their opinions without fear of government reprisal, and so on. But, at that time, there was no digital media (only the printed word).

With this in mind, do you find that the court system should support no limits on gun control or freedom of speech? For example, under the Second Amendment, and because the government (i.e., the police and military) have access to certain types of weapons, do the people also need them in order to defend themselves in the case of tyranny? Additionally, under the First Amendment, and because everyone and anyone can “publish” their option via instant digital media (i..e, twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and so on), should limits be placed on permitting publication of “legitimate” opinions or facts?

What are your thoughts?

Unfortunately, there have been life altering situations in our society where acts of terrorism, massacre, and extreme violence have been exhibited by individuals who had no logical reason to act that way. These situations that involve gun violence and other heinous acts are one of the only reasons why I believe in the 2nd Amendment BUT with limitations. Like our professor stated, AK-47’s were not a thing back in the old days and neither were assault rifles. These weapons allow for mass destruction and killing when put into the hands of the wrong people. With this being said, I do not think that gun control should make its way into the lives of people who choose to own guns for sport, hobby, or personal desires. I say this being that I know plenty of people like this and I do not worry about them using their guns for crime. But how do we regulate these things? Well, you place extensive regulations on who can buy a gun and how long it takes to acquire that gun. I do think that every state should have psychological testing for possible gun owners and there should definitely be a longer waiting period for somebody who is looking to purchase a firearm. With all of this though, I do not believe that guns themselves are the problem. People are the problem. The root of the problem. There will always be special circumstances with any law and there will always be people who take things too far. Good people with guns have not been known to cause harm but bad people with guns do.

In regards to the 1st Amendment and freedom of speech, I feel pretty much the same way about this that I do on gun control. I believe that everybody has the right to their own opinion and can feel the way they want to feel regarding whatever topic, but I don’t necessarily believe that running your mouth on social media (using that as an example because it’s so abused nowadays) has any relation to what the Founding Fathers were trying to get at. I think I would support the idea of limits being placed on permitting publication of ‘legitimate’ facts instead of only opinions. Don’t get me wrong, opinions are great and we are all encouraged to have them. But sometimes things get taken too far when, again, the wrong people take the context of freedom of speech to purposefully hurt, shame, harass, or put others down. Which is where I draw the line and have a problem with it.

I’m sure we all have big opinions on these topics and other similar ones as they are quite controversial…

Leigh,

Thank you for your thought provoking and interesting post. I agree with you that the First and Second Amendment should remain unchanged. For that matter, I believe that the Bill of Rights should not be altered. I say this, not because I’m trying to differentiate between moral reasoning and legal reasoning, but because altering any amendment in the Bill of Rights is inherently dangerous. It’s true that the forefathers, in writing these amendments, did not have access to AK-47s. If they had, it would have made the job of routing the British all the easier. And the forefathers did not have to endure Paris Hilton’s tweetstorm of selfies. However, the temptation to change these first two amendments is often an attempt to legislate behavior. In the last 25 years, we have seen a sharp increase in violence and in people being distasteful in the “running of their mouth”. However, the Bill of Rights is there to ensure the fundamental rights of people of all historical ages, including the early part of the 21^st century. Just because society has turned violent and mouthy does not give the government the authority to potentially violate the rights of the masses in order to correct social deficits. Some would argue that we need to alter the Bill of Rights to counter modern problems. I would counter that what we need are laws to counter modern stupidity aimed at the guilty, rather than limiting the rights of all in an attempt to improve a society of social corrosion. Anyone remember the last time we legislated morality in an attempt to improve society …? We called it Prohibition … How’d that work out for ya’ …??? I’m not saying that we shouldn’t enact laws with moral reasoning as their basis. What I am saying is that a strong Bill of Rights protects the interest of the masses. As Fletcher (1987) states, moral principles supplement valid enactments as components of the law.

Thank You,

Gordon

Reference:

Fletcher, G. (1987). Law and morality: A kantian perspective.

Columbia Law Review. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1122670 (Links to an external site.)

Reference:

Roskin, M. G., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., Jones, W. S. (10/2013). Political Science: An Introduction, 13th Edition [VitalSource Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9781269724821

What are the advantages and disadvantages of having a branch of government that is not democratically elected?

Although federal judges are appointed, the Senate still has to confirm them. So, even though judges are not elected, per se, the president typically nominates judges in line with his party beliefs. If the majority in the Senate is also of the same party as the nominating president, the confirmation process can be fast. So, in essence, when you vote for president, you are voting for the types of judges (liberal or conservative) that the president will appoint. Your presidential vote is a defacto vote for federal judges.

So, even with this defacto election (nomination), judges, once confirmed are on the bench for life. The good news here is the fact that, since this is a lifetime appointment and with hundreds of federal judges on the bench, it is not possible for one president (or party) to nominate a majority of the justices. This provides for long term balance.

Some of the advantages vs disadvantages of appointing judges:

Advantages:

Judges can rule without fear of party (voter) repercussions.

They are free to interpret the Constitutionality of cases before them (giving them real authority).

The best candidate for the job (ABA vetted) can be chosen.

Disadvantages:

Judges may be accused of legislative activism from the bench (impeachment is the only way to remove them).

Vacancies can go unfilled for years if the Senate blocks the confirmation of candidates (usually falling on party lines).

Voters may feel disenfranchised by a system that does not allow them to directly select judges they feel will be fair and honest. Often, the public knows little about the candidates for the bench until they are nominated or confirmed. Candidates may not be forthcoming with their beliefs on the Constitution. (Think positions on Roe vs Wade or gun control). According to Roskin (2014), judicial review is highly developed in the U.S. Americans expect more of their courts than do other peoples.

The process of confirmation can get ugly with Senate hearings.

Would you change the way the court is appointed?

No. Simply because the sheer volume of appointees guarantees appointing of judges across the political spectrum as administrations change and as control of the Senate changes. The lifetime appointment ensures stability in the judicial system that an election system for choosing judges would undermine. Historically, the current system has worked well. Basically, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Thank You,

Gordon

Reference:

Roskin, M, Cord, R, Medeiros, J, & Jones, W. (2014). Political Science:

         An introduction (13^th ed). Hoboken, N.J.: Pearson.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of having a branch of government that is not democratically elected?
•    One of the disadvantages that I have found is that “personal beliefs and ideology loom large in their decisions, raising the question of whether the Court can be an impartial dispenser of justice” (Roskin, 2014, pg. 253). Another disadvantage is that justices are in the position for a life term. If a justice is chosen by the president and approved by the senate but they eventually stop doing the great job they once did, this would place the Supreme Court in a tough situation of having to oust someone who was given a life term.
•    One of the advantages is that since the Supreme Court justices are not actually elected then they are able to maintain focus on what is important to them and the country and not have to focus on campaigning and election poll’s every few years.
Would you change the way the court is appointed?
•    I would not change the way that these courts are appointed. I feel that once approached to become a Supreme Court justice, these judges have proven themselves elsewhere. I think that being able to keep your focus on what is right without having to consider the influence from congress, the White House, or interest groups is a great thing to maintain adequate and appropriate justice.

References: 
Roskin, M, Cord, R, Medeiros, J, & Jones, W. (2014). Political Science:
An introduction (13th ed). Hoboken, N.J.: Pearson.

Reference:

Roskin, M. G., Cord, R. L., Medeiros, J. A., Jones, W. S. (10/2013). Political Science: An Introduction, 13th Edition [VitalSource Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9781269724821

An advantage of having a branch of Government that is not democratically elected, is that the unelected official can make a judgment that may not please everyone but one that is correct and thereby protects the interests of the people.

A disadvantage of having a branch of government that is not democratically elected, it might allow for misuse of public funds and time. We may add another factor such as a system that is governed by a corrupt, irresponsible and incompetent leader.

I would not change the way the court is appointed. Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President when an empty seat becomes vacant and are filled according to their having qualifications such as Political ideology, Party and Personal Loyalties, Ethnicity and Gender and Experience. Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life. Most have had tenure (approximately holding a seat 16 years) and superb guidance as they are independent, immune to congressional,White House, and private interest parties Roskin (2014. Ch.15 Pg.255).

It was once said by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, “A Supreme Court Justice should be a combination of Justinian, Jesus Christ, and John Marshall”.

Justinian: (Roman emperor quote): Justice is the constant and perpetual wish to render to every one his due.

Jesus Christ: (Deuteronomy 16:18-20): You shall appoint for yourselves judges and officers in all your towns which the Lord your GOD is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people.

John Marshall: His court opinions helped lay the basis for the United states Constitutional law and many say he made the Supreme court of The United states a coequal branch of government along with legislative and executive branches.

US history of Truth, Justice and Liberty For All is what matters, to support our First Amendment constitutional rights.

Reference

Roskin, M.G, Cord, R.L, Medeiros, J.A., & Jones, J.S. Political Science: An Introduction. 1(3th Edition) 2014

Let’s switch gears and talk about the Justices themselves. Some politicians claim that, in order for an appointed Justice to service, s/he should have the “norms and values” that the particular politician agrees with.

So, whose “norms and social values” apply in the context of making, enforcing and/or interpreting laws? As an example, aren’t most people critical of “Hollywood norms and values” which seem to be out of touch with those of ordinary Americans? What about the norms and values of those who live in CA versus those who live in, say, TX? How should the Supreme Court decide which norms and values apply in interpreting Constitutional law?

I found your post very interesting, and I would have to say I feel much of the same way regarding these two issues within our society today. To add to your discussion, those who want to do harm within our society will do all it takes in order to get their hands on the weapons they want. By placing laws that without our American rights to bear arms would not prevent these hanus crimes from happening. Take for example drug use, much of the drugs that are being used by addicts are illegal. These individuals want a substance bad enough that they go extensive routes to obtain it. Who is to say that this is any different than with guns and gun control. By allowing law abiding citizens to practice their second amendment rights it can help protect our society as a whole. It can take law enforcement an extensive amount of time in order to get to the scene of an incident, but with the right training and safety approach, those with permits can help to protect themselves and others when the situation may ensue. Yes times have changed since the creation of our constitution, but also so have the laws changing in order to mold around the ever changing society. In my opinion, this is the appropriate way to handle laws within our society as we change.

You all have posted great entries, and I have to say I agree with all of you.  The First and Second Amendments need to be protected…BOTTOM LINE! What will changing them accomplish?  Nothing, in my opinion.  Marissa, you make a great point with the drugs analogy.  If someone wants something bad enough, they will find a way to get it.   Whether that be alcohol during the prohibition, AK-47s by your local gang members, or cigarettes from the underage teen.  Ground rules need to be set though, and while the First Amendment allows for freedom of speech, it does not give someone that right to yell “fire” in a crowded room. So although the constitution and amendments are our rights, current and modern regulations should be set.  Yes I have guns, yes I love my rights to own my shotguns, rifles and pistols, but do I need to own an AK-47? No!  I have absolutely no reason to own a semi or fully automatic gun.  These type of guns should be left for our armed forces, military, and law enforcement.  “In 2008, the supreme court decided the District of Columbia v Heller, 5-4, overturning a handgun ban in the city. The conservative justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion in narrow but unprecedented terms: for the first time in the country’s history, the Supreme Court explicitly affirmed an individual’s right to keep a weapon at home for self-defense” (Yuhas, 2017).  As Gordon stated, we need “laws to counter modern stupidity aimed at the guilty, rather than limiting the rights of all in an attempt to improve a society of social corrosion” (Wertz, 2017).

Refernece:

Wertz, Gordon (2017). Devry University. Retrieved from https://devryu.instructure.com/courses/17705/discussion_topics/329176?module_item_id=1901903.

Yuhas, A. (2017, October 05). The right to bear arms: what does the second amendment really mean? Retrieved November 24, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/05/second-amendment-right-to-bear-arms-meaning-history

I think that the courts system should not support no limits on gun control or freedom of speech.  Certain guns should not be owed by owned by private citizens.  If this guns are in the hands of private citizens it just mean that the government or military with have to continue to develop more lethal weapons.  Its a vicious cycle.

If people abuse their right for freedom of speech, they should be held accountable.  It statements incite riots or violence, the person should be held responsible.  There should be a limit to the maliciousness of speech.  If someone knowingly post slanderous and misleading information, they should be held accountable and not protected under the 2nd amendment.

Hey Robyn,

I could not have said it any better, the court should not support no limit on gun control and freedom of speech. The citizens sometimes do possess some lethal weapons even more dangerous than what the normal police have. This makes it hard to protect the citizens as they wield more power than the police. On the other hand, the people should b accountable for what they say. When you talk or speak bad you need to face the full force of the law. there needs to be a limit on what we can do or say. Good post

Here’s the background:

The judge found several defects in the procedures by which Brown tossed the student. For one thing, Brown told the student he would be judged under the 2014 student code of conduct, but then, without warning, switched to a new and harsher code that did not exist when his alleged offense occurred.

In addition, Brown’s training of sexual assault investigators apparently caused them to deliberately overlook evidence with the potential to exonerate Doe, such as exculpatory text messages sent after the alleged assault.

Throughout his ruling, the judge expressed his reluctance to intervene in a matter like this. He concluded, however, that Brown’s misconduct left him little choice.

The judge also had some choice words for the Brown students who launched an email campaign attempting to pressure him into ruling against the male student. He wrote:

After issuing the preliminary injunction this Court was deluged with emails resulting from an organized campaign to influence the outcome. These tactics, while perhaps appropriate and effective in influencing legislators or officials in the executive branch, have no place in the judicial process.

This is basic civics, and one would think students and others affiliated with a prestigious Ivy League institution [Brown University] would know this.

Moreover, having read a few of the emails, it is abundantly clear that the writers, while passionate, were woefully ignorant about the issues before the Court. Hopefully, they will read this decision and be educated.

(Emphasis added).

Clearly the judge was able to make his ruling based on the law, and not political pressure. Based on this, what do you think about judges receiving tenure based on their qualifications rather than being elected to their positions as with politicians?