Warren Court?
Monday, August 17th, 2009 at
5:03 am
Roy Asked:
analyze judicial activism and judicial restraint and the effects of each policy over the decades
Reply:
Am I wrong thinking that there are a bunch of homework questions on this board? Try Google
Source(s):
Tagged with: Warren Court
Filed under: Attorney FAQ
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
1. And you are asking this in the Economics section of Yahoo Answers rather than the Government and Politics section because?
2. Have you heard the joke about the three umpires? The Supreme Court is like the third umpire.
The rest of us can have opinions, but only the Court can say it made a mistake.
3. And even if otherwise, how many constitutional lawyers are reading yahoo Answers, much less the Economics section? What do we know of the details of what the Warren Court decided and how it related to precedence?
4. And why are you asking about the 1960s? Some of their biggest decisions were earlier: Brown vs. Board of Education, Cooper vs. Aaron, Yates vs. United States, etc.
One gets the impression you have a particular decision in mind, but aren't honest enough to ask about it.
4. As for the big cases, the Warren Court may not have decided the way I would, but they certainly did not exceed their jurisdiction.
But then, I am not a Constitutional lawyer.
Man, that must have been a great feeling
. The reaction of the crowd is worth more than any trophy, in my opinion. He made a lot of people feel real good that night 
!
“The Reagan administration’s attacks on the exclusionary rule — a barrage of speeches, opinion articles, litigation and proposed legislation — never gained much traction. But now that young lawyer, John G. Roberts Jr., is chief justice of the United States. This month, Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority in Herring v. United States, a 5-to-4 decision, took a big step toward the goal he had discussed a quarter-century before. Taking aim at one of the towering legacies of the Warren Court, its landmark 1961 decision applying the exclusionary rule to the states, the chief justice’s majority opinion established for the first time that unlawful police conduct should not require the suppression of evidence if all that was involved was isolated carelessness. That was a significant step in itself. More important yet, it suggested that the exclusionary rule itself might be at risk.”
“Friedman’s thesis [concerns] the influence of public opinion on the Supreme Court. He sees the justices and the people as partners in a “marriage” that bypasses the elected legislature and the president… The marriage between the court and the people, like many enduring ones, has gradually mellowed. At first, there were occasions when the two sides clashed mightily, but over the years they’ve learned to come into equilibrium.”
Unless you make more then $250,000 a year you are asking this question because you're listening to the McCain campaign and not considering your own self-interest.
Over the past 10 years or so the distance between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else has gotten bigger and bigger. Part of the reason that happened is the Bush/Republican tax policies that reduced taxes on the wealthiest 2% of Americans enormously.
So all Obama is saying is that there could be a little more fairness in the tax system.
danm he is a true fuckin playa
I’m definitely not an O’Reilly fan but he was defending his words because of people like Mr. Ballentine and those who are calling his comments racist. They’re not and he was letting others know that there is nothing to fear when going to that restaurant and to Harlem. It was his personal experience and he wanted to calm the fears of others. Isn’t that one of the goals to stopping racism and stereotypes?
This will help you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Court
Dale Carpenter: Olson/Boies should realize these are not the days of the Warren Court [IGF]
oh oh i forgot to tell u guys that i seen Warren Sapp in court yesterday
One Circle Table – about 45″ diameter with Metal with Glass top – needs a new coat of spray paint and a cleaning
One is a white melamine top – 60″ diameter – not so great looking on the top, but works well with table cloth
Free – please take today
Available at 8 Warren Court, TIburon 94920 – call 415-595-3630 for availability
RT (Cherish & Enjoy your mate!) If there was more courting in marriages,, there would be less marriages in court!- (R.Warren)
RT "If there was more courting in marriage, there'd be fewer marriages in court ~ Rick Warren | /via
Griswold vs Connecticut (1965) – right to privacy
Reynolds vs Sims (1964) – one of the key civil rights decisions of the 60s; helped establish "one person, one vote"
Miranda vs Arizona (1966) – police must inform people being arrested of their legal rights
Gideon vs Wainwright (1963) – establishes the right to have a public defender in criminal trials
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_gideon.html
In a sense, The Supreme Court and the American Elite, 1789-2008 is a history of the United States seen through the lens of the Supreme Court. The book’s title asserts its thesis, and among elites national politicians rank at the top. Mr. Dooley got it right: the Supreme Court does follow the election returns – especially if the president is lucky enough to get several quick vacancies (like Warren Harding’s four in his twenty-nine month presidency). By following the election returns, the Court functions as part of a national political regime and typically issues decisions that advance the constitutional visions of that regime. Thus at the height of the Warren Court, President Lyndon Johnson told historian William Leuchtenburg “that never before have the three independent branches been so productive.” To be sure, there are counter examples to the Court aiding the dominant regime. We all know that John Marshall was not advancing Thomas Jefferson’s agenda. However, while Marshall may have…
RT "If there was more courting in marriage, there'd be fewer marriages in court ~ Rick Warren | /via
I'm at Cafe Pedlar (210 Court St, Warren, Brooklyn).
Remember negative liberties. Those in power want power over you and your life. Who are they to take away your God given right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. Don’t fall for the lies. So what if he is mixed he is a puppet just like bush. And just like bush he back the bailout, and goverment spying , plus the war over seas. So what change is there? Where in for hell and so are are children if we don’t do something
oh cwap. johnny just wants some votes. his answers are so scripted and free of profound intellectual and heartfelt wrestles with these incredibly rich and important subjects. he’s so just all about saying what voters want to hear. gross. really gross.
Am I wrong thinking that there are a bunch of homework questions on this board? Try Google
Thats good to know. Thank you.
man jonathan is that you lol
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.” – Barack Obama (2001) Chicago WBEZ-FM
The signs were all there! Don’t blame me when the shit hits the fan. I didn’t vote for him.