John Marshall, appointed by federalist John Adams, was one of the Supreme Court's greatest justices; because he avoided corruption, was a constitutional level judge and did not “legislate from the bench”. He was one of the longest-serving Supreme Court justices (serving from 1801 to 1835) and made judicial decisions that helped shape judicial law in America, which had recently been unified under the Constitution. Marshall was a great defender of federal power, and his judicial decisions unified the judiciary under federal authority without weakening legislation. His rulings also helped create a stable business environment through greater national unification. Because he was an uncompromising federalist, his position as a Supreme Court justice helped keep less federally entrenched branches of government in check and prevent democratic excesses. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay One of his most important cases was Marbury v. Madison, which occurred in 1803. With the majority, Marshall affirmed Marbury's right to their commissions, establishing the policy of judicial review, which gave the Supreme Court the power to determine the constitutionality of laws. The marshal boldly stated that "[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." This new power made the Supreme Court equal in influence to the executive and legislative branches. As a Hamiltonian federalist, Marshall was a loose constructionist when it came to constitutional rulings. Although he interpreted the Constitution loosely, the way he interpreted it was generally fair and correct. He believed that the Constitution was “destined to endure for centuries to come and, accordingly, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” This was further exemplified in his wise majority ruling in McCulloch v. Maryland, which established the “implied powers” ​​doctrine – using stretchable clauses of the Constitution such as the “necessary and proper” clause and the “general welfare” clause, and that “…the powers vested in the government involve the ordinary means of execution . The government which has the right to carry out an act and has imposed on it the duty to carry it out, must be able to choose the means according to the dictates of reason. It also asserted the authority of federal power over state power, as it denied states the power to tax the national bank, or any other federal institution. In Aaron Burr's treason trial, Marshall honored Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, which stated that the accused could not be convicted without the testimony of two witnesses. John Marshall helped bring about the national unification of the judiciary through the subordination of state courts to federal courts. In 1821, Marshall strengthened this judicial nationalism and put appellate jurisdiction into practice in Cohens v. Virginia, who took a case that had already been decided by the Virginia Court to the Supreme Court. Marshall's Cohens decision was wise because it began the push toward judicial nationalism and unification under the federal government, and was in part an alternative. attempt to prevent biased decisions and corruption, as he once wrote: "... In many states, judges depend for office and salary on the will of the legislature." . Hunter's tenant, as he and his brother had leased part of the land over which it was disputed. This was a very responsible action taken to prevent possible bias. Whilewere a Federalist forced to participate in largely Democratic administrations, Marshall did not interfere excessively with legislation. In the Gibbons v. Oden of 1824, he effectively asserted congressional power to control interstate commerce. When Marshall intervened with legislators, as in Fletcher v. Peck, it was to prevent corruption caused by bribery. The Fletcher decision also determined the Supreme Court's power to invalidate unconstitutional or corrupt state laws. In addition to defining the role of the judiciary and strengthening the role of the federal government, John Marshall also protected commercial enterprise. In Dartmouth College v. Woodward, the court ruled that state courts could not alter or invalidate a private contract. This also gave a lot of power to federal courts rather than state courts. While people power is a vital and valuable component of our democracy, it is also important that the states that make up the United States are truly united, not only economically, but also politically. Chief Justice John Marshall ensured that America developed into a centrally unified nation and that federal power was distributed equally among the three branches. His centralizing efforts and wise rulings helped forge a stronger America. Oliver Wendell Holmes, jr., was a truly great Supreme Court justice because he avoided corruption while minimizing bias, remained constitutional in his decisions, and was a bulwark against judicial activism. Holmes was appointed by Republican Theodore Roosevelt and served from 1902 to 1932. He believed that "words tinged with morality caused a great deal of confused thinking" and that a judge's personal prejudices and moral beliefs should not be a factor in determine their judicial decisions. . This impartial and non-denominational view of justice is what made him one of the least corrupt judges of all time. His refusal to mix morality with law was present in his majority decision Buck v. Bell that allowed for punitively below-average intelligence. woman to be sterilized. His moral cynicism was clear in his argument: “We have seen more than once that the public welfare can appeal to the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if he could not appeal to those who already undermine the strength of the State for these minor sacrifices, often not felt as such by those involved, to prevent us from being swamped by incompetence… Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Although, to me, this ruling seems unwise and ethically disgusting; Holmes stood by the decision because he believed that he was, and indeed could, apply the law uniformly, without the influence of popular, priestly, or partisan opinion. Judge Holmes was also a protector of the First Amendment right to free speech. , and taught a new legal philosophy concerning the meaning of the law and how the Constitution should be interpreted. He emphasized a break with formalism and encouraged “legal realism,” the idea that “the life of the law was not logical; it was an experience. He believed that judges should understand the historical, social and economic aspects of the law and, as he stated in Lochner v. New York, “that law should be developed together with society.” In Abrams v. United States he wisely dissented against the violation of First Amendment rights. The majority decision affirmed the constitutionality of the Espionage Act and sentenced two men who had published anti-war pamphlets to 20 years in prison. In this case, Holmeshe further insisted on his philosophy that the Constitution is “an experiment, as all life is an experiment.” His loose interpretation and view, much like Marshall's, that the Constitution was an adaptable document did not overstretch the limits of constitutionality and did not give too much power to the judiciary; but, rather, it provided a greater capacity for change. Above all, Holmes (the “great dissident”) was an antagonist of judicial activism. He believed in the doctrine of “judicial restraint,” which held that the court could and should not interpret the Constitution based on personal considerations.philosophies. He thought that it was the job of legislators to determine what the laws should be and that the powers of the judiciary should not grow so much that they dominate the legislative branch. He proved it by dissenting when the court blocked one progressive law after another. An example of this is the case Adkins v. Children's Hospital, in which the majority attempted to overturn a law passed by Congress guaranteeing a minimum wage to women and children employed in the District of Columbia. His decision to dissent was wise in the sense that it was a move against judicial activism and (although it was probably not his intention) it supported workers' and women's rights. His impartial view of the law and interpretation of the Constitution, as well as his opposition to judicial activism, made Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., a truly great judge. Earl Warren was certainly a good Supreme Court justice because, although he pushed his legislative agenda, his rulings avoided and even fought corruption. His very loose construction of the Constitution allowed him to make the changes necessary to move America forward in a time of intense racial tension and social disorder. Many of its rulings protected the civil liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights, largely First Amendment rights, but also the rights of minority groups such as blacks and women. The highly liberal Justice Warren was appointed by Democrat Dwight Eisenhower and served from 1953 to 1969. His most famous case, Brown v. but equal” policy exercised by previous justices declaring that segregation was inherently unequal. He further stated, “The segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect on children of color.” By changing the established precedent of previous court rulings, it can be argued that Warren has stretched the Constitution a little too far. However, it should also be noted that racial integration in schools was an imminent and necessary change. For this reason Brown's decision was very wise. Judge Warren was truly a champion of civil rights in America. In the Griswold v. Connecticut increased freedom for women by abolishing laws against contraception. In The New York Times v. Sullivan increased freedom of the press by declaring that the First Amendment protected the publication of all statements, even false, about the conduct of public officials. Engel v. Vitale and School District of Abington Township v. Schempp increased religious freedom by further separating church and state and by ending prayer and Bible reading in public schools (this decision was highly controversial and is still unpopular among many Americans today). All of these rulings made profound changes to the rule of law by bypassing legislation, but the reality was that Congress was taking no legislative action during the civil rights movement. So did Warren's court. Conservatives despised his judicial activism, but supporters ofWarren concluded that “legislation by the judiciary” was better than no legislation. Warren was also a bit of a populist and preached the language of equal representation, “one man, one vote.” In the case of Reynolds v. Sims, the Supreme Court ruled that legislation should be proportional to the population. Warren said: “. . . the weight of a citizen's vote cannot be made to depend on where he lives. . . A citizen, a qualified voter, is neither more nor less so because he lives in the city or in the countryside. . . the Equal Protection Clause requires substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places, and of all races.” This was another wise decision, obviously in favor of equality, which also debased legislative authority. But regardless of whether Judge Warren “legislated from the bench” and interpreted the Constitution perhaps too loosely, his decisions and his constitutional interpretation were made with the future and the light of the times in mind. Justice Warren's active role in making America a more tolerant and egalitarian nation, despite his unconventional methods, is what made him a good Supreme Court justice. Roger Brooke Taney was a fairly poor Supreme Court justice, because he let personal biases influence his rulings and his interpretation of the Constitution and took part in judicial activism. Taney was chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1836 to 1864 and was appointed by Democrat Andrew Jackson. Unlike Chief Justice Marshall, Taney was a Jacksonian Democrat; and, although he himself was a vague constructionist, he led the court away from more progressive, constructionist decisions and more toward the strictly constructionist tendencies of the Democratic Party. Also, unlike Marshall, he supported local property owners over big businesses and monopolies, as well as states' rights over complete federal rule. The 1837 case of Briscoe v. The Bank of Kentucky showed a break with Marshall's nationalistic policies, as he sided with the state bank, which had issued notes contrary to the prohibition against states issuing bills of exchange (in Article I , section 10 of the Constitution). Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge reflected another victory for states' rights, as the autonomy of the Massachusetts state legislature was recognized; and by allowing the construction of the Warren Bridge, Taney demonstrated that he had no sympathy for monopolies or Wall Street interests. While Taney's strict construction may be considered more “constitutional,” it is not necessarily more morally just or progressive. Indeed, the minimally amended Constitution of Taney's day was anything but color (or gender) blind. It was easy for Taney to find constitutional support to act on his belief that blacks were “a weak and gullible race” and that their emancipation would mean “absolute ruin to the Negroes, as well as to the white population.” Taney's most famous and longest-running case was Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1857, in which he agreed with the majority's decision. This decision defined slaves as property, not as people, and declared that the federal government would not recognize their citizenship: “True, every person, and every class and description of persons who at the time of the adoption of the Constitution were recognized as citizens in the various states, also became citizens of this new political body; but no one else; it was formed by them, for them and for their posterity, but for no one else. objective; prevent civil war through pacification of the South (la.