History of the court
This is the Supreme Court Historical Society. On this website, on the left menu (next to the picture of the current justices), click on History of the Court. It lists all of the different time periods since the original Jay Court (they are named after the sitting Chief Justice). Choose 5 of these Courts and for EACH Court, provide a summary, in a minimum of 150 words PER court, of the important events that occurred during each of the 5 Chief Justice’s tenure.
Write the complete summary in a Word document (.doc or .docx) and upload it to the Dropbox Web 4 (other forms of submission will not be accepted).
History of the court
The Jay Court, 1789-1795
The constitution of the US required a supreme court and a government legal executive however but gave the Congress to explain the details. Consequently, the law made 13 locale courts in the urban communities with just one appointed judge and three circuit courts to cover different areas of the US (“The supreme court historical society”). A supreme court was likewise established comprising of a chief justice and five other associates. The president appointed John Jay, a diplomat and a New York-born stateman as the first chief justice. The president also chose other associate judges based on personal abilities and sectional jealousies. The court held is processions twice in a year as required by the law since it started with an overcrowded courtroom and an empty docket. During the war between Britain and France, the court refused to help the president on making decisions. It stated that it could not share executive powers and duties with any other party. To date, the supreme court makes the judgement on the case rather than making decisions on behalf of the government. This can be seen in Glass v. Sloop Betsey case, in 1794(“The supreme court historical society”).
The Rutledge Court, 1795
The president appointed John Rutledge as the chief justice Jay’s successor since he had served as an associate in South Carolina. However, his appointment was not lasting until the committee affirmed him. Rutledge made a serious mistake that cost him truly in July 16, 1795, (“The supreme court historical society”). He delivered a long discourse criticizing the provincials of Jay’s treaty. He asserted that Jay’s settlement was great for the interests of the British and that he would prefer to kick the bucket than having the president sign it.
Consequently, Rutledge’s criticisms angered the partisans exaggerated the reports made by Rutledge and circulated rumours about his mental imbalance. For this reason, they requested that Rutledge not to be given his short-term bonus as chief justice. The president kept his assertion by letting Rutledge preside the August period as a recess appointee. At the point when the senate met in December, it dismissed his lasting arrangement by a vote of 14:10(“The supreme court historical society”).
The Ellsworth Court, 1796-1800
Oliver Ellsworth was appointed as the chief justice after Rutledge was rejected. More so, Jay’s agreement kept on outraging the Americans who imagined that it was excessively great for Britain. Consequently, the court needed to audit the case of Ware v. Hylton (“The supreme court historical society”). In the supreme court, John marshal argued his case defending the Virginia law annulling installments to British loan creditors. However, he lost the case as the chief justice decided that any treaty of the US must abrogate the law of any state. Another incredible occasion occurred during president John Adam’s term, where the French offended the organization from abroad, and the republicans much criticized it.
Consequently, the federalists feared attacks on the new constitution formed and on themselves. After hearing the accents of French in each sentence, they passed the subversion demonstration of 1798(“The supreme court historical society”). Thus, the law endangered any individual who spread bogus and pernicious words against the legislature to bring them into a dispute. The law would expire after Adam’s term which ended on March 3, 1801(“The supreme court historical society”).
The Burger Court, 1969-1986
Warren Burger, a local of Minnesota became the next chief justice of the Burger court in 1969 thus replacing Earl Warren. The court included one of the known decisions including the conflicts between religious freedom and the state government funded schools in 1972(“The supreme court historical society”). Nonetheless, it brought about a triumph for three families in provincial Wisconsin who needed religions freedom for their kids. The family wouldn’t send their kids to a government funded school asserting that the system of education was in opposition to the Amish religion and a danger to the kids’ salvation. The Amish families exhibited their commitment to their religious beliefs. In 1983, the court additionally made a decision that reading a prayer at the start of the Nebraska council didn’t abuse the amendments of the religion provisions (“The supreme court historical society”). It broadened the degree where government utilized the religious symbols to recognize the legacy of the nation. For this reason, most Americas take freedom of worship and speech as the first amendment guaranteed it.
The Rehnquist Court, 1986-2005
The Rehnquist Court of 1986-2005 faced the same problems faced other courts (“The supreme court historical society”). For this reason, the court kept on deciding matters relating to the capital punishment, civil rights, abortion among many others. However, the basic changes in American culture have driven the Rehnquist Court to wander into the legal terrain. For instance, the court is regularly called upon to choose whether or not to expand the common right law defined by ethnicity, gender, race or physical ability. More so, the new evolving technologies have influenced the court to consider medical care while making its decision towards a patient’s life. It also chooses whether speech on internet should be free for what it’s worth on the conventional media. For this reason, the court faced an arduous task while maintaining the elusive balance between the government and the religion. For instance, the court explains that land owners are qualified for remuneration regardless of whether a guideline takes their property incidentally.
References
“The supreme court historical society.” 1974. History of the court. https://supremecourthistory.org/history-of-the-court/
