Sources
Help build the largest human-edited directory on the web.
Submit a site - Become an editor
Wikipedia. Licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
Are you an expert in this subject? Join the discussion and share your knowledge at Wikipedia.org.
Warren Court
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Warren Court, (1953-1969), represents a period of Supreme Court history with one of the starkest and most dramatic changes in judicial power and philosophy. Led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court expanded civil rights, liberties, the judicial power, and the federal governmental power in ways previously unseen.[1] At the same time heralded and criticized for its activism in bringing an end to segregation, incorporating the bill of rights, ending prayer in schools, and other controversial decisions, the period is recognized as a high point in judicial power that has receded ever since, but with a substantial continuing impact.[2][3]
Significant decisions included holding segregation unconstitutional (Brown v. Board of Education), that the Constitution protects a general right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut), that schools cannot have official prayer (Engel v. Vitale) or mandatory Bible readings (Abington School District v. Schempp), dramatically increasing the scope of the doctrine of incorporation (Mapp v. Ohio; Miranda v. Arizona), reading an equal protection clause into the Fifth Amendment (Bolling v. Sharpe), holding that the states may not apportion a chamber of their legislatures in the manner in which the United States Senate is apportioned (Reynolds v. Sims), and holding that the Constitution requires active compliance (Gideon v. Wainwright).
Prominent members of the Court during the Warren era besides the Chief Justice included Justices William Brennan, William Douglas, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, and John Marshall Harlan.[4]
It has often been suggested that one of the primary factors in Warren's leadership was his political background, having previously served as Governor of California, before his appointment to the position of Chief Judge by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1953. This background seems to have given Warren a strong belief in the remedial power of law. According to Bernard Schwartz, Warren's view of the law was pragmatic, seeing it as an instrument for obtaining a right result, in the ultimate pursuit of equity and fairness. This was also largely related to the conditions of the era, however. Schwartz argues that Warren's approach was most effective "when the political institutions had defaulted on their responsibility to try to address problems such as segregation and reapportionment and cases where the constitutional rights of defendants were abused." [5]
- ^ Sunstein, Cass Breyer's Judicial Pragmatism University of Chicago Law School. November, 2005. pg. 3-4. ("To many people, the idea of judicial deference to the elected branches lost much of its theoretical appeal in the 1950's and 1960s, when the Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice Earl Warren, was invalidating school segregation (Brown v. Bd. of Educ.), protecting freedom of speech (Brandenburg v. Ohio) stiking down poll taxes (Harper v. Bd. of Elections), requiring a rule of one person, one vote (Reynolds v. Sims), and protecting accused criminals against police abuse (Miranda v. Arizona)."
- ^ Sunstein at 4 ("Is it possible to defend the Warren Court against the charge that its decisions were fatally undemocratic? The most elaborate effort came from John Hart Ely, the Warren Court's most celebrated expositor and defender, who famously argued for what he called a "representation-reinforcing" approach to judicial review. Like Thayer, Ely emphasized the central importance fo democratic self-rule. But Ely famously insisted that if self-rule is really our loadstar, then unqualified judicial deference to legislatures is utterly senseless. Some rights, Ely argued, are indispensable to self-rule, and the Court legitimately protects those rights not in spite of democracy but in its name. The right to vote and the right to speak are the central examples. Courts promote demoracy when they protect those rights.")
- ^ Sunstein at 4 ("Ely went much further. He argued that some groups are at a systematic disadvantage in the democratic process, and that when courts protect 'discrete and insular minorities,' they are reinforcing democracy too.")
- ^ Schartz, Bernard (1996) The Warren Court: R Retrospective Oxford, pg. 5. ISBN 0195104390
- ^ Schartz, Bernard (1996) The Warren Court: R Retrospective Oxford, pg. 6. ISBN 0195104390
 |
This law-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |