Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Questions on Supreme Court. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 5 page research paper that addresses five topics pertaining to the Supreme Court. Topics covered include judicial restraint, use of precedent, search and seizure and the right to privacy. Bibliography lists 2 sources.
Page Count:
5 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_khqusuct.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
felt that the role of the Supreme Court, in cases such as the US v. Southeastern Underwriters Association, should be to given congressional language its widest possible scope, rather than
to scrutinize the wisdom of antitrust legislation (Dunne, 2000). In other words, Justice Black was a firm advocate of judicial restraint. His voting record supports this statement. Justice Felix
Frankfurter also repeatedly declared his adherence to the doctrine of judicial restraint (Epstein and Walker, 1998). However, the voting record from his last nine years as a justice reveals someone
who did not hesitate to vote with the majority to overturn legislation. Therefore, as Epstein and Walker (1998) point out, "what justices say they do and what they actually do
may be two different things" (p. 34). This also illustrates a less obvious point, which is that "judicial activism and restraint do not necessarily equal judicial liberalism and conservatism" (Epstein
and Walker, 1998, p. 34). An activist judge need not necessarily be liberal and vice versa. 2. Brennan and Marshall versus Rehnquist and Scalia. In a famous Supreme Court
case, Barron v. Baltimore (1832), Chief Justice John Marshall rejected the position that the Bill of Rights covers state actions (Epstein and Walker, 1998). The reasoning behind this decision was
that the Framers of the Constitution did not intend for the Bill of Rights to do so. Roughly 150 years later, Chief Justice Rehnquist employed the same line of reasoning
to find that cartoon parodies, while frequently obnoxious, constitute free of expression under the First Amendment (Epstein and Walker, 1998). Advocates of this approach to Constitutional interpretation argue that
the Framers acted in a very considered manner, that is, that they knew what they were doing and that the language chose "meant something," therefore it is incumbent upon the
...