During this paper I will confront the three most important things that I learned throughout the class. I will then discuss why Dred Scott had the greatest impact in shaping America and in shaping the future of the Supreme Court’s decisions. The first most important thing that I learned throughout the class was that just because the Supreme Court reached the right result does not mean that they did it through the proper means. An example of this is Miranda V Arizona.
Once Miranda was decided the Supreme Court created a rule that the police had to follow. However, because of this strict rule, repeatedly cases arose that questioned this rule and required a separate ruling. After many of these cases the procedure the police have to follow before arresting someone or questioning them is incredibly confusing. While in my opinion people should be informed of their rights before being subject to questioning and detainment the decision that the Supreme Court made has resulted in an incredibly confusing procedure.
Furthermore, Roe V Wade in my opinion is another example of the court getting the right result but did not use the proper means. With the courts ruling and rationale it shows a glaring deficiency in the knowledge of Justice Blackmun with the trimester stipulation. Furthermore, this case included the idea of substantive due process which further extended the courts power to determine what freedom is. In this case it is clear to see that the rationale was entirely flawed and the means at which the court came to the decision was not correct.
The second most important thing that I learned throughout the class is that the Supreme Court has too much power. Throughout the class this was a reoccurring theme, nine unelected lawyers determine a decision that could change the face of our nation. This can be seen in many of the more controversial Supreme Court decisions. For example, if Plessy V Ferguson would have been decided differently the nation would look entirely different. With the immense power that the Supreme Court has and its ability to shape the nation it is not worth the risk that they may get a decision wrong.
Rather they should leave a lot of these decisions up to the legislators because if the legislators get something wrong their constituents will have sway and may be able to get it changed. Whereas, if the Supreme Court makes a decision it set precedent and are therefore setting policy for the nation as unelected legislators. With this ability to set policy and precedent it is dangerous that we give them this ability with almost no accountability. The third most important thing I learned throughout the class is that although the Supreme Court may make mistakes the alternative is not much better.
As it stands now the Supreme Court has made some overreaching decisions and clai however, they very rarely make the wrong decision. However, the alternative to the Supreme Court would be the legislators who can be swayed by public opinion. So although the public will be getting exactly what they want this may not always be a good thing. This can be seen with the Brown V Board of Education case. If left up to the legislators of many of the southern states segregation may not have been found illegal for many years after.
Although the Supreme Court has done some harm and expanded their power more than the founders may have intended they have also done a lot of good and used that power to protect the rights of many groups of people that would have otherwise been disenfranchised and disregarded by state legislators. I think that the most important case in shaping not only America but also the future of other Supreme Court decisions was Dred Scott V Sandford.
Without the Dred Scott decision the American Civil War may not have happened for some years later nd once it finally occurred we might not have had the leadership of Abraham Lincoln. This case was decided at a point in time when tensions were at a breaking point. With the decision it allowed for the Whig party to ultimately dissolve paving the way for the Republican Party and with it one of the greatest presidents of all time. However, not only was this case influential in the Civil War but it also introduced the idea of substantive due process which subsequently paved the way for many of the Supreme Courts decisions.
Substantive due process is the idea that the Court can define what freedom is and whether or not someone is being deprived of that freedom. With this new ability to decide cases it paved the way for many of the more controversial cases, which has resulted in shaping the nation. An example of the use of substantive due process is the Roe V Wade case and also the OBergefell V Hodges case. Through the theory of substantive due process the Court was able to define what freedom was and that both women and same sex couples were being deprived of their freedoms.
Without Justice Taney’s inclusion of the theory of Substantive due process these cases may have been decided differently, or the Court may have recognized that a lot of these decisions that they were making had no Constitutional ground and would instead turn many of these cases to the individual States legislatures. It is hard to say exactly what would have happened however, it is clear to see that with the inclusion of substantive due process it allows the Court a dangerous power and gives them authority over things they may have no business in being a part of.
