Ouch

[JAG]

The Supreme Court acts like 'politicians in disguise'. Discuss.

Wow, my essay question worth 60 out of 100 marks in my second of three politics exams I had today.

I don't think I did very well, you understand I have to get certain things in like past SC rulings - Marbury vs Madison, Brown vs Board, Plessey vs Ferguson etc - the function of the SC and how justices are appointed. Apart from putting in all that I stated that with cases such as brown vs Board they did in effect lead the govt into change, they were willing - because of factors such as not having to be responsible to an electorate - to take the decision which was so unpopular in certain parts of the US even when the govt was unable or unwilling to do so. They acted upon the will of the majority of the people in the US and enforced social change.

Blah blah blah. I sucked I reckon, rest of the exams were OK. Had a question also worth 60 marks on the first exam something like - 'Assess the opinion that the 2004 Presidential election was won by the candidate who convinced the electorate that he would do the best job as commander in chief'. Ace'd that one, simply because it was peasy, but this SC one I mucked up a bit.

So... Just wanted to get some views on what I should have written - remember it is an exam and I only had ~35 mins to write it - I didn't think it was inappropriate - quite the opposite in light of recent threads - and fairly interesting.

Anyway, ouch, that hurt - probably not cost me my grade A but still brought it down a lot.

[English assassin]

Wow, who would have guessed that Gawain would set your politics exam?

Or that the backroom's obsessions would have been so useful in real life.

[Fragony]

You must be exhausted JAG, I don't have a clue what this is about! Anyway I hope you will do well with your exams

[JAG]

Wow, who would have guessed that Gawain would set your politics exam?

Or that the backroom's obsessions would have been so useful in real life.

I have always said, the backroom is great for my further education both phulosophy and especially politics, even to a certain degree economomics - it is like advanced revision. I have used arguments put forward here in my essays before, it is great.

Anyway, any Yanks wanna tell me what I should have wrote? It was a hard question no? :(

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Anyway, any Yanks wanna tell me what I should have wrote? It was a hard question no? :(

Are you serious ?

This parts like an oximoron and really messed up.

Apart from putting in all that I stated that with cases such as brown vs Board they did in effect lead the govt into change, they were willing - because of factors such as not having to be responsible to an electorate - to take the decision which was so unpopular in certain parts of the US even when the govt was unable or unwilling to do so. They acted upon the will of the majority of the people in the US and enforced social change.

My whole point and that of others on the Supreme court is that it makes these rulings against the will of the people. There was no backing by a majority of Americans on these issues. One minute your touting how their doing it even though it was unpopular and thats why their not elected and then state their doing what the majority wants.

[JAG]

It is an exam Gawain - you don't state your opinion you simply state a case in point back it up then object to it... If I was to write my opinions in exams I would seriously get nowhere.

So Gawain what should I have argued! Please give me your opinion I know you and others must have one to the question. I am seriously interested into what the best answer should have been.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It is an exam Gawain - you don't state your opinion you simply state a case in point back it up then object to it... If I was to write my opinions in exams I would seriously get nowhere.

Thats what Im talking about. You gave in effect your opinion and not the truth. The truthis that they over rode the will of the people in all these cases. You should have shown how the court instead of doing its job is acting like a super legislature and now making law in the US instead of reviewing it. Even reviewing it was a power they siezed for themselves in Marbury vs Madison. You should have taken each of these cases and illustrated how they apply to the Supreme Court acting like 'politicians in disguise' not giving your opinion that what they did was correct.

Im afraid ouch may be a very appropriate name for this thread.

[Steppe Merc]

What class is that, American? I know I would be sunk if I had to write an Essay about English politics.
I hope you did well.

[Pindar]

You should have couched your answer in a more general discussion of Judicial Review. Judicial Review is inherently political as it involves the Court contravening legislative action. This would have allowed you to put forward all the case law needing citation and contrast and compare Court action irrespective of popular oversite.

[JAG]

Thats what Im talking about. You gave in effect your opinion and not the truth. The truthis that they over rode the will of the people in all these cases. You should have shown how the court instead of doing its job is acting like a super legislature and now making law in the US instead of reviewing it. Even reviewing it was a power they siezed for themselves in Marbury vs Madison. You should have taken each of these cases and illustrated how they apply to the Supreme Court acting like 'politicians in disguise' not giving your opinion that what they did was correct.

Im afraid ouch may be a very appropriate name for this thread.

Cheers - I did kind of attempt to illustrate what you just said, remember was just summarising my essay. I did criticise the view I first stated as well.

What class is that, American? I know I would be sunk if I had to write an Essay about English politics.

It is politics but this year was all about American politics, so don't worry I was ready, been studying your political systems for a whole year now. :p

You should have couched your answer in a more general discussion of Judicial Review. Judicial Review is inherently political as it involves the Court contravening legislative action. This would have allowed you to put forward all the case law needing citation and contrast and compare Court action irrespective of popular oversite.

Now I think that is definately what I should have done, I got on that drift a bit, but didn't completely get to that train of thought which is a shame as I think that would have been the best answer.

[English assassin]

JAG, a word of advice. Sat exams are like ex girlfriends. In time, distance may lend objectivity, but in the immediate aftermath the rule is never explain, never apologise.

For what its worth I didn't think your argument was an oxymoron, provided you said unpopular in PART OF the states. Though perhaps introducing the will of the people needed to be backed up with exactly what people you were talking about (viz, the inteligent and well informed ones). Some reference to the dangers in a democracy of the tyranny of the majority and the court as a counterbalance maybe?

Anyway as you rightly observe, notwithstanding Big G's views on the subject there isn't really a right answer to that question, the examiners are going to look at how you argue it.