Understand The Supreme Court Via Listening To Supreme Court Arguments
Second only to watching the proceedings in person or perhaps seeing them on television, listening to the Supreme Court justices argue and debate about a case was an informative and unique experience. Although I was aware of how the court system worked before listening to this proceeding, I was unaware about several of the stylistic processes involved in arguing a case. For example, I was not aware that each side had time requirements and that the proceedings were carried out in a more question-and-answer style. Hearing the justices ask questions of each other, probing the issue and the position of the other client with vigor but not hostility was also an informative and interesting glimpse into how our laws are interpreted. Because I wanted to consider an argument that is very relevant to today's politics, I choose Reno V. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. This case dealt with both illegal aliens and terrorism, too hot issues in today's United States. Essentially, the case revolved around six men who were threatened with deportation. It was the reason for this deportation that was disputed. The government claimed that the men were being deported for a variety of valid reasons, working with out a permit and fai
I understood that when justices are some times accused of judicial activism, they are simply trying to make the law fair for everyone. As justices considered the impact on each individual in the case, making sure to see the case in the larger context of all immigrants, I understood this more completely. The young men had engaged in several activities that were legal, such as distributing magazines, activities that were protected by first amendment rights. This may include a bit of "activism," or changing the interpretation of the law, but this is generally because the law was incorrectly interpreted before. While this was rather frustrating to listen to since I have not memorized the constitution, it must give peace of mind to those who fear judicial activism. An American citizen could ask for judicial review if he or she believed selective enforcement was used with him or her at a security check at the airport. The seamless flow between individual case and larger implications gave me a great del of insight into the judicial process. Thus, the Supreme Court was arguing whether or not it was legal for the government to selectively deport those whom it sees as a threat if they have committed some type of illegal discretion in regards to immigration. I have heard many debates, from political to high school, and I was surprised at how different these proceedings were. I was pleased at how well the justices carried out the discussion as just that, a discussion in pursuit of an enlightened answer instead of a debate match pitting sides against each other. The young men's attorneys, however, argued that they were being deported because they were associated with a certain group that the government interpreted as being a threat. Similarly, the justices discussed implications for the immigrant population should the law be interpreted as excluding selective enforcement, asking if every immigrant who did not want to be deported could use it as a chance to avoid leaving the United States. I believe aliens should reserve the right to question the biases of their authority figures as well. Listening to this case has allowed me to better understand the controversy, however, and the current issue of terrorism.
Common topics in this essay:
John Lennon,
Supreme Court,
United Essentially,
Anti-Discrimination Committee,
,
selective enforcement,
supreme court,
judicial activism,
supreme court justices,
brought court,
court justices,
justices discussed,
individual larger,
oral arguments,
|
Acceptance Essays
