“Originalism is great.” (Epstein, pg. 45, 2004)
Citations may be done in parenthetical after the cited section. Example: “Originalism is great.” (Epstein, pg. 45, 2004) If done this way, works other than the text should be given a fullcite in a bibliography. The more specific references to the text or to our notes/discussions the better, but use them to support your position, not to make it. Suggested 6 pages minimum. Double-spaced 12 point Times New Roman Font, normal margins. Title page is not necessary but does not count against page limit. Make sure to provide name and class and title of PLSC 5 T-1. Answer each question separately and either number or insert question (question does not count toward length). Not all questions have the same weight. Please distribute your answers accordingly. Due: Sunday, 13 March. Submit in Canvas via copy and paste (preferred) or attachment. Q-1: (40 points) Establish and justify your judicial philosophy. Use the hypothetical that you are being considered for a position on SCOTUS. Include discussion of the various theories/schools/approaches, including why you don’t agree with the alternatives. Include any material from the course to this point (any cases, specific examples from justices in the text or video, readings from the Welcome Module, etc.) or from your personal experience that gives insight into how you view the role of a Justice. Q-2: (40 points) Utilizing Maslow, Kohlberg, Rawls and Nozick and any other sources, establish your position on what LAW is and what role/function it plays in society. Essential to that is an elaboration of your definition/concept of Justice. Distinguish this from your judicial philosophy, but they should be consistent and compatible. DO not overlap your answers. Q-3: (20 points) Examine the use of Judicial Review and Selective Incorporation by the Supreme Court. Is this a legitimate extension of the Court’s powers underArticle III? What are the implications for civil rights and liberties? TOPIC: Political science
Q-1: Establish and justify your judicial philosophy.
As a potential Justice of the Supreme Court, my judicial philosophy is based on the principle of judicial restraint. Judicial restraint is the theory that judges should interpret the law according to the original meaning of the Constitution, rather than imposing their personal views or values on the law. This approach limits the role of the judiciary to that of a neutral arbiter, rather than an active participant in the policy-making process.
While there are various theories and schools of thought on judicial philosophy, such as judicial activism, originalism, and living constitutionalism, I believe that judicial restraint is the most appropriate approach for a Supreme Court Justice. Judicial activism, which involves interpreting the Constitution broadly and expanding individual rights, is a departure from the original intent of the Constitution and can lead to an overreaching judiciary. Living constitutionalism, which involves interpreting the Constitution in light of contemporary social and political values, risks turning the judiciary into a super-legislature and undermining the democratic process.
My view is influenced by the works of legal scholars such as Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia, who advocate for a strict adherence to the original meaning of the Constitution. In addition, I am also influenced by the decisions of the Supreme Court, such as District of Columbia v. Heller, which upheld an individual’s right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which recognized the First Amendment protection of political speech.
Furthermore, I believe that the role of a Supreme Court Justice is to interpret the Constitution and federal law in a way that respects the separation of powers and preserves individual liberty. The Constitution establishes a limited government with enumerated powers, and the judiciary should ensure that the other branches of government stay within their constitutional boundaries.
In sum, my judicial philosophy is one of judicial restraint, which emphasizes the importance of following the original meaning of the Constitution and preserving the separation of powers. This approach promotes the rule of law and respects the democratic process.
Q-2: Utilizing Maslow, Kohlberg, Rawls and Nozick and any other sources, establish your position on what LAW is and what role/function it plays in society. Essential to that is an elaboration of your definition/concept of Justice.
Law is a set of rules and principles that govern the conduct of individuals, groups, and institutions in society. The law provides a framework for resolving disputes, enforcing rights and obligations, and promoting social order and stability. However, the law is not simply a set of arbitrary rules; it reflects the values and principles of society and provides a means for promoting justice.
Justice is a complex concept that can be approached from various perspectives. One way to understand justice is through Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which posits that individuals have basic needs such as physiological, safety, love, esteem, and self-actualization. Justice can be seen as the fair distribution of resources and opportunities necessary to meet these needs. For example, a just society would ensure that all individuals have access to basic needs such as food, shelter, and healthcare.
Kohlberg’s theory of moral development suggests that individuals progress through stages of moral reasoning, from a focus on personal reward and punishment to a concern for universal ethical principles. Justice can be seen as the application of these principles to the law. Rawls’s theory of justice as fairness emphasizes the importance of a just distribution of resources and opportunities, and the need for a social contract that ensures that individuals have equal access to these resources. Nozick’s theory of justice as entitlement emphasizes the importance of respecting individuals’ property rights and the role of the state in enforcing these rights.
In my view, justice is a fundamental value that should guide the law. Justice requires that the law be impartial, fair, and consistent in its application. It also requires