First Initial Law Political Science

Political Science: First Initial

Question 2

The interest groups try to affect the judicial system in three ways: lobbying on judicial confirmations, filing amicus curiae briefs, and sponsoring litigation[footnoteRef:1]. Lobbying on the judicial confirmations includes knowing who would become the court judge to influence the court case and their decisions could be made. Appointing a suitable judge on this position costs millions of dollars to those who want to have their judge of interest. Although the process is a routine one but demands time and money. Public campaigns are run for this purpose, and interest groups spend large money amounts for their judge of interest. [1: James A. Morone and Rogan Kersh. By the People: Debating American Government, Brief Edition, Oxford University Press, 2018, p. 303.]

The second way in which interest groups could influence the judicial system is filing amicus curiae, which refers to the invitation of the interest groups related to the pending case in the form of presentation of memos regarding the case they are interested in. they present their viewpoints and arguments on the case that result in attracting interest groups on some of the major cases in the year 2020[footnoteRef:2]. The case of the Consumer Protection Bureau in 2020 attracted more than fifty amicus curiae from hundreds of such groups. [2: Ibid., 303.]

While it could be costly to take an individual case to Court knowing that a great amount of money would have to be infused for paying the lawyers, researching for the issue and arguments, and following up on litigation[footnoteRef:3]. Instead, interest groups back an ongoing case in the Court, for example, if it concerns government funds going to any religious school or Civil Liberties Union. The process is initiated by choosing their interest cases, recruiting plaintiffs, and funding the relevant legal actions necessary for the case. [3: Ibid., 303.]

Question 3

The presidency has increased in power due to the image that English men have had regarding their kings. The redefining of the roles and responsibilities of the President was done when it was observed that people were freely coming in the White House to meet the President, and he had no privacy to meet in a single room with his cabinets[footnoteRef:4]. People even mobbed his rooms and halls, which was not deemed appropriate. [4: Ibid., 370.]

Powers had to be increased for the President so that easy access could be somewhat modified for the President’s security. Some conditions were set for the President to be eligible, like being 35 years old and living within the United States for the past fourteen years[footnoteRef:5]. Along with this, the powers included being the head of the navy, military, and army combats, possessing the sole power to declare war when in need, stating the budget for this purpose, and making rules governing the concerned parties, granting or opposing the offense made against the country, formulating treaties with the parties who are interested in the same goals, the appointment of ambassadors, and asking the authorities to act upon the Constitutional aims so that reporting to the President is reckoned mandatory[footnoteRef:6]. [5: Ibid., 370.] [6: Ibid., 371.]

President’s powers could be debated for being either strong or weak. When a weak individual becomes President, no court, Congress, or people can limit his powersunder the Constitution. However, this is the unitary executive theory, which has pros and cons. Imperial presidency rather makes a string individual becoming a President more like an emperor. Yet, there has enough to be discovered in this regard as only two Presidents have been able to fulfill their Presidency terms. The reason for not being able to do so is the inability to deal with domestic issues, raising a question of their full power.

Question 4

The concept of gerrymandering denotes seizing the opportunity of redistricting due to the change in the population of each state and county within the country[footnoteRef:7]. The resulting impact is seen on the seats of the Houses. The reapportions redefine the boundaries of the election districts and their respective seats, which is in reality called redistricting. [7: Ibid., 282.]

Two main methods of gerrymandering a district are packing and cracking[footnoteRef:8]. Packing is about placing the same type of voters in one district. In contrast, the other method involves making them disperse in several districts of minorities to gain representation from those areas. [8: Ibid., 283.]

The two example cases that the Supreme Court has decided on this subject are Evenwel vs. Abbott, 136 S. Ct 1120 (2016) and Rucho vs. Common Cause, 139 S. CT. 2484 (2019)[footnoteRef:9]. The first case talks about permitting the total population for calculating compliance with one person and one vote. The case taught the calculation of the total population of Reynolds and Wesberry, the population equality for districting planning was under debate. Plaintiffs from Evenwel side challenged redistricting scheme of Texas 2011 with the argument that its use of the total population discriminates the voters and is not in line with the Equal Protection Clause. The disproportionate weightage was given to the rest of the population, whereas immigrants were neglected. The decision from the Supreme Court came as a confirmation that states can use the total population for attempting to comply with one person and one vote feature. This did not mean that other methods were disallowed, though. [9: National Conference of State Legislatures, Redistricting and the Supreme Court: The Most Significant Cases, 14 September 2021, https://www.ncsl.org/research/redistricting/redistricting-and-the-supreme-court-the-most-significant-cases.aspx.]

The other case example is Rucho vs. Common Cause, where the federal courts’ excessive capacity for redistricting and their resolution was discussed along with regulating partisanship in all state courts, Congress, and state legislatures[footnoteRef:10]. The problem started when issues arose in defining who much partisanship is too much, as in Davis vs. Bandemer. The issue was too hard for the federal courts to solve, leading to ‘non-justiciable’ claims in the courts. It was ascertained that state courts and legislature should be facilitated to answer such questions shrewdly. The ability of partisanship for redistricting that avoids traditional legislative process was regulated by the Supreme Court and its decision. [10: Ibid.]

Question 5

The goals of American foreign policy are national security, fortune, and spreading American values globally[footnoteRef:11]. In Biden’s administration, the interim National Security Strategy (NSS) is considered important for leadership roles within the American institution and creating a security image worldwide[footnoteRef:12]. However, it rejects one of the major challenges of foreign policy, which is alliance management. Although military strengthening has been part of every policy, and so does Biden’s NSS, the great power relation and competition through NSS backing have been under discussion since Biden has come into power. Biden government knows the power of ‘primacy’ and hefty investments that need to be injected within military empowerment; therefore, NSS highlights the support from allies and interested parties when threats from adversaries are high. This could be attributed to another feature of national security in foreign policy: realism. America sees the rest of the world as dangerous, and for that, it needs to have strong allies so that when the time comes, the military power with the support of allies could be used effectively. [11: James A. Morone and Rogan Kersh. By the People: Debating American Government, Brief Edition, Oxford University Press, 2018, p. 501.] [12: Cornell Overfield, Biden's National Security Strategy is Starry-Eyed about US Allies, 14 May 2021, https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/05/14/biden-national-security-strategy-us-allies-partners/.]

The second goal of American foreign policy is prosperity and fortune. America is considered the largest economy globally, and the allies for national security it has made have contributed to its further economic strengthening[footnoteRef:13]. Biden has followed the same pattern with his newly defined national security policy amidst Covid 19. Health has become a key priority for the American people under Biden’s administration and, a broader interpretation of national security has been outlined[footnoteRef:14]. Global health security asks for improving domestic health strategy, conducting leadership strategies that signify diplomatic global health concerns, and foreign support for the provision and fortification of national health systems. [13: Ibid., 504.] [14: David P. Fidler, President Biden's Foreign Policy and National Security Approach to Global Health Comes into Clearer Focu, 11 March 2021. https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/president-bidens-foreign-policy-and-national-security-approach-global-health-comes-clearer.]

The third goal of America’s foreign policy is spreading American values globally. It has been evidently and flawlessly done with effective use of ‘soft power.’ Using culture and economy in various world areas through entertainment, music, and movies has proven to be valuable for creating bonds and formulating a type of security of its own culture. Biden’s government has relied more on alliance-making and multilateralismin terms of this tactic. Biden knew that exhibition of American moral values through sift power can help synergistically amalgamate more systematic power. It is expected to yield positive outcomes for the United States while gaining unending admiration for the country and securing its position against its rivals.

Question 6

The process through which a case may be heard before the Supreme Court includes steps like writs of certiorari, law clerks, briefings, making oral arguments, and variations of the procedures[footnoteRef:15]. Taking the example of the United States vs. Windsor case, its writs of certiorari were presented in the United States Court of Appeals to give the case a chance of consideration[footnoteRef:16]. Afterward, the equal protection case for same-sex couples is saved in the clerk’s file when the Constitutional contemplations were discussed for religious freedom, civil marriage equality, and overall freedom for the citizen. The briefings took place with the standpoint that under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), same-sex couples burden their lives as they become visible in the eyes of the common public. The intricate procedure of filing their taxes is evident for which brief for Federalism Scholars as Amici Curiae 34 emerged, prohibiting them from burials in veteran’s cemeteries. The oral arguments were presented after this phase on March 27, 2013, stating that the federal state does not allow such couples a tax exemption for the spouses who have survived. As the marriage of Windsor and Spyer had taken place in Canada, 2007, after Spyer’s death, Windsor was heir to her entire estate for which she had to pay taxes. Considerations of DOMA and House of Representatives were conducted during these case’s oral arguments. The variations of the procedures were witnessed when the second circuit took place, prudential concerns were made, Justice Kennedy gave opinion for the Court, Constitutional Articles’ standings were clarified on certain instances, and dissent was comprehended. The decision was made that DOMA was held unconstitutional, and the affirmation was made by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. [15: United States Courts, Supreme Court Procedures, n.d., https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1.] [16: Legal Information Institute, United States v. Windsor. n.d., https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-307]

The decision of the Supreme Court in the United States vs. Windsor case created a positive effect on same-sex marriages and their supporting groups. The Court held that section 3 was DOMA was unconstitutional since it negated Equal Rights Protection under the Constitution. Under the light of this decision, the tax exemption clauses were redefined for same-sex couples since before that, ‘marriage’ was only believed to be between opposite sexes and that spouse would only mean an opposite gender person[footnoteRef:17]. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had now to consider all the marriages as formal marriages regardless of the gender as long as they are stood official in the Supreme Court, hence the tax policies were reformulated for all types of marriages, even for the same gender. [17: Smith Gambrell Russell, The Sweeping Effect of the Windsor Decision. n.d., https://sgrlaw.com/ttl-articles/the-sweeping-effect-of-the-windsor-decision/.]

The Justices of the Supreme Court rule on this case, in order of seniority with last names mentioned, were as follows:

· Roberts: Dissent

· Scalia: Dissent

· Kennedy: Majority

· Thomas: Dissent

· Ginsburg: Majority

· Breyer: Majority

· Alito: Dissent

· Sotomayor: Majority

· Kagan: Majority[footnoteRef:18] [18: Oyez, United States vs. Windsor. n.d., https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-307.]

The Justices of majority argued that the economic injury would be large if equal protection for all the marriages is not provided as DOMA’s third section does not fall in the proven category under the Constitutional rights for the citizens[footnoteRef:19]. DOMA seemed to be against the authority of defining marriage and does this on its terms rather than on a legislative basis. Conversely, the Justices of dissent held that the majority’s standing does not cater to the state definitions of the Court’s decision’s effects on same-sex couples. In their opinion, it was wrong for the Court to exercise its authoritative power to assert the final decision on same-sex marriages and not give rational grounds for marriage characterization and its scrutinized standards. [19: Ibid.]

The majority opinion given by Justice Kennedy stated that DOMA seems to impose injury to every class of the society and providing violation of basic human rights. Justice Ginsburg said that equal protection and liberty are the major rights of any citizen without their sexual discrimination living in a country. Justice Breyer believed that the adoption of same-sex marriage law enactment in New York was done to eradicate inequalities which is not the case entirely. Justice Sotomayor said that equalities should be imposed for human rights purposes and the dignity and integrity of the Constitution. Justice Kagan supported the same notion by saying that DOMA has burdened the lives of same-sex couples since they cannot even get basic rights of their lives, such as medical care that they otherwise might have been able to get.

The dissenting opinion that Justice Scalia gave was about people taking power in their own hands and making their decisions themselves, which was evident in Windsor’s case. Justice Thomas said that the petitioner had done the same as what court judgment and Court of Appeal has done: giving relief to the judgment without scrutinizing whether it should be dismissed or not. Justice Roberts said that it is the game of power, and the majority is given this power to be used in their favor, causing an imposition of a judgment within the Court. Justice Alito said when power is concerned, we have no power to invalidate this case in the light of the Constitution and cannot change the final consequences that would occur legislatively and democratically.

When the majority of the justices in the Supreme Court do not agree to hear the case, the writs of certiorari are not accepted. It means that the decision of the lower Court stands true as it would be because there would be no fault in the lower Court’s decision, no considerable legal issue, the allowed time to file the case was over, waiting for the facts to get straight or do not want side issues[footnoteRef:20]. In October 2014, when the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals of the cases for same-sex marriages, it came out without a reason that came as a shock to the nation[footnoteRef:21]. It had become a routine for same-sex couples to live without permission from the Court. Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia had permitted same-sex marriages at that time; 26 states banned it, while six stated were in the process of allowing it after this decision of the Supreme Court. [20: US Supreme Court Notes, n.d., https://media.okstate.edu/faculty/jsenat/jb3163/supremecourt.html .] [21: Robert Barnes, Supreme Court Declines to Review Same-Sex Marriage Cases, Allowing Unions in 5 States, 6 October 2014, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-declines-to-review-same-sex-marriage-cases/2014/10/06/ee822848-4d5e-11e4-babe-e91da079cb8a_story.html.]

Obergefell vs. Hodges case

As the name signified, Obergefell and Arthur were two individuals who had a gay relationship and asked the Court to recognize same-sex marriage in death certificates. Thus, the case is about the Supreme Court’s refusal to consider same-sex cases and protecting due process and equal protection clauses with the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment[footnoteRef:22]. It was different from Windsor’s case since it was related to tax and property inheritance in Windsor’s instance, while Obergefell was about considering same-sex couples on death certificates and giving them the due recognition if same-sex couples are taken as ‘married’ in reality. Under the Constitution, marriage is the wedding between two individuals, and with the provision of marriage equality, the approval of rights of LGBT couples should be ensured. As other states were legalizing these marriages after Windsor’s case, four similar cases were sought in the Court, including Obergfell’s case. It was something new that was to be discussed under the light of the Constitution. It had never been discoursed before by the Courts that the fundamental right of LGBT couples wanted the marriages to be a topic of ‘due process’ being in line with the Fourteenth Amendment. [22: Ballotpedia, Obergefell vs. Hodges. n.d., https://ballotpedia.org/Obergefell_v._Hodges.]

The Justices of the Supreme Court rule on this case, in order of seniority with last names mentioned, were as follows:

· Roberts: Dissent

· Scalia: Dissent

· Kennedy: Majority

· Thomas: Dissent

· Ginsburg: Majority

· Breyer: Majority

· Alito: Dissent

· Sotomayor: Majority

· Kagan: Majority[footnoteRef:23] [23: Oyez, Obergefell vs. Hodges. n.d., https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556.]

The arguments that Justices used in the majority were Fourteenth Amendment should be considered lawful as having the fundamental right to marry with an individual autonomy is the due right of every citizen without any sexual discrimination[footnoteRef:24]. Legal recognition should be provided to the citizens to families and their children to maintain and sustain social order. The denial of the equal protection clause would be a renunciation for all human beings, whether they are gay couples or not. Conversely, the arguments that Justices of dissent presented stated that Constitution currently does not address the issue of same-sex marriages and therefore, equal protection for such couples does not apply. The Constitution does highlight the equal right to marry. However, the Court cannot overrun the Constitution and make their policies for LGBT couples. Supporting a state to modify its definition for marriages would be an intrusion in the Constitution that Courts should not be allowed to do. [24: Ibid.]