Introduction

Each Supreme Court justice has developed a judicial philosophy. This philosophy is reflected in the decisions he or she makes on the bench and the opinions he or she authors over the course of his or her career. Although the justices hear a wide variety of cases in any given year, their judicial philosophies remain relatively consistent. This assignment is designed to help you develop your own judicial philosophy in a variety of areas. When you hear a case at the end of the term, you are expected to approach that case in character. Your questions and your decisions will need to be consistent with the philosophy you have developed.

You will express your philosophy in a one to two page statement. This statement should be carefully written and well organized. Begin with a clear statement of your overall philosophy. Then address questions related to specific amendments (see below).  Use precedents to illustrate your philosophy. (For example, I fully support the Court’s decision in Mapp v. Ohio that evidence obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment should be excluded from court.)

Before you write your statement of judicial philosophy, you need to answer the following questions. It would be helpful to identify a sitting justice who shares your perspective and determine how he or she has decided on issues related to criminal rights. The Oyez site shows how the justices voted on each case.

Overall Philosophy

• Which of the following do you subscribe to and why: Judicial Restraint v. Judicial Activism?

• Are you a strict constructionist vs. loose constructionist? How do you view the Constitution?

Criminal Rights

•  Do you think the Court has gone too far in protecting the rights of criminals? In answering this question, you should consider the impact of several precedent setting cases decided during the tenure of Chief Justice Earl Warren: Mapp v. Ohio (1961), Miranda v. Arizona (1966), Gideon v. Wainwright (1963).

• Has the Court placed too many limitations on capital punishment? In making decisions on the scope of the 8th Amendment, should the justices consider public opinion? world opinion?

Right to Privacy

• Do you believe the right to privacy is implied in the Constitution and thus should be protected by the Supreme Court?

• Do you think the Court has exceeded its authority in defining and applying the right to privacy?

Where the Current Justices (and O’Connor & Rehnquist) Stand:

• Judicial Restraint: Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, Justice Rehnquist

• Judicial Activism: Justice Breyer, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Stevens, Justice Souter

• In the Middle: Justice Kennedy, Justice O’Connor