The Fairness of the US Supreme Court Rulings

The Fairness of the US Supreme Court Rulings

The United States of America has a federal system of government. Each state in America has its complete judicial structures known as the state courts.  The highest court in the US is the Supreme Court, where its decisions are final. The Supreme Court has ultimate appellate jurisdiction in the US. The paper will try to establish the fairness of the judicial system in the United States of America and the judges therein. Different cases, the Supreme Court has nullified or upheld from the lower courts, according to the legal system of the US will show whether the American system is fair or not. In this paper therefore, Supreme Court will form the basis of argument and determination of fairness and unfairness or prejudices in the courts.

There is a list of landmark cases that have been ruled out in the US. From the thesis statement, these cases will help in the determination of fairness and unfairness in the judicial system of the US. The facts are therefore ranging from the individual rights cases, criminal law, federalism, and first amendment rights to many more examples, which have also been determined in the federal courts of the United States of America. These rulings have put the American federal courts and the entire court system on the spot due to the verdicts. By the end of the paper, I will have determined the prejudices and fairness in the ruling.

The ruling on a right to an attorney who is provided by the state is an excellent decision by the court. There are instances where arrested and some convicted persons are unable to afford an attorney. Clarence Gideon was proven guilty for breaking into a poolroom; this was a lawbreaking crime in the state of Florida. This suspect appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the state must provide a free attorney to any accused persons who are unable to afford a counsel. This decision applied to felonies but was later allowed to any cases where the punishment was six or more months. This is a very fair ruling because affording an attorney to represent you in the US is expensive and cannot be affordable to everybody. This ruling has spared many people from being imprisoned because of minor crimes. The free attorneys provided by the state have helped suspects from getting imprisoned. This, therefore, is a fair and impartial ruling by the Supreme Court ruling.

The ruling on discrimination based on race and ethnic background is unfair. The perception that persons of African descent cannot sue in a federal court is entirely immoral and inhuman. To the best of my knowledge, all the people are equal no matter where they come from. This type of ruling in the American courts is unfair and infringing on the fundamental human rights. The exclusion of individuals from juries simply because of their race becomes a significant violation of the law. For instance, in one of the cases determined in the US federal courts, a complaint was made saying that the Supreme Court had ruled on a case favoring a white person at the expense of the black. This ruling based on skin color, ethnic, and racial background taints the fairness and equity in the American governments. Chief Justice Roger Taney is one of the judges who pioneered the discrimination laws. He said that the American constitution does not consider slaves and the blacks to be citizens; therefore, they are not protected by statute.

The discrimination based on sex is another failure in the American ruling. The supreme court of the US ruled that the number of working hours for women should be restricted so as the health for women shall not be affected due to long working hours. It was made constitutional, which is under the fourteenth Amendment. As much as this court ruling is to protect women from violation and their health, it violates the right of women in controlling their working hours. Further, in the discrimination based on sex, the exclusion of women from the jury pool and some training violates the fair-cross section of the impartial jury clause. This federal ruling was partial and favored the other gender, which is unconstitutional.

The court decision and ruling of the use of contraceptives and the general family planning invaded the privacy of its citizens. The Connecticut law, which criminalizes usage of the contraception among married persons, is unconstitutional and not right. This is because American people have the right to their privacy, and it is protected in the constitution. This ruling is, therefore, invading the privacy of married couples and thus limits the freedom of using contraceptives. On the side of unmarried persons, the Massachusetts law also criminalizes the using of contraception. This violates the right to privacy, which is also protected in the constitution. This ruling by the federal and supreme courts that the use of contraception is illegal is unfair and to no small extent invading the privacy of its citizens. Therefore, without fear of contradiction is unjust.

The Supreme Court of the United States has, in many scenarios, opposed the euthanasia of a severely ill patient on request from the family. The State opposes this request for a lack of evidence from the patient to be euthanized. From the government’s side, it is fair enough because the family of the patient might want to euthanize him to take the patient’s property for many reasons. The federal courts and the Supreme Court are, therefore, justified to rule against such requests to avoid unnecessary euthanizing of persons in hospitals. On the contrary, the families of patients may also have their reasons for why they want to terminate their person’s life. In this case, both sides are justified in decisions. However, for the sake of protecting the well-being of patients, the Supreme Court is to rule in that manner.

There are freedom and liberty of the American press. The press is therefore protected from any invasion from the state. First Amendments make sure that there is a free press. This is protected in the federal laws, not the state laws. This protection of the media has given the people the freedom to express their thought without fear of intimidation. The ruling, otherwise referred to as the landmark free press decision, has protected the press from any bullying from the state. This is one of the few cases and rulings by the Supreme Court judges, which I can consider fair and without any favors. This ruling and protection of the press and American media has made the American judicial systems to be given the respect  due to this honorable ruling

The one person one vote policy was arrived at and became law after a group of Tennessee voters sued the state. This group had claimed that the voting districts were diluting their political muscle. After considerable debates and arguments in courts, they all came to a consensus that a person owns one vote; this is fair and impartial. The court ruled that all the voting districts should follow this one person one vote policy. This policy has brought relevance in the voting systems because no one is allowed to vote more than once; we can refer to this policy as universal suffrage.

The ruling on suspects remaining silent is another significant ruling that I respect, which was made by the Supreme Court. You have the right to remain silent has become a common phrase. This ruling was after Ernesto Miranda agreed to have kidnapped and raped a woman. The court nullified his conviction on the basis that he was conversant with his right against confession. The law has protected many suspects from being forced to confess to crimes that they have not committed. Were it not for this significant ruling; many suspects would have been convicted on self-incrimination.  Another fair decision by the Supreme Court, which has protected many persons from forceful confession against crimes they are being charged for.

The right of choice on matters of abortion was also another ruling that I consider significant. A woman in the state of Texas had sought an abortion but was not allowed under the laws of the country. However, the court removed that law on the basis that the judge denied women their right to choose. This made the Supreme Court set guidelines on cases of abortion. The right to choose is a constitutional right, and therefore no woman should be denied it. Supreme Court set the abortion regulations, and abortion was restricted to the early stages of pregnancy. Later stages or trimesters were subject to discussion as the abortion could be dangerous and deadly. This decision stands as the most controversial decision of the Supreme Court.

In conclusion, there are so many human rights that should be put into consideration before a ruling is made in any court. From the above text, I have shown how the various cases show the fairness and unfairness of the Supreme Court rulings. Apart from the few cases that the Supreme Court ruled and are affecting some persons, the rest of the decisions are fair and impartial. The American Supreme Court is indeed in favor of its citizens’ well-being. Therefore, the cases handled by the US Supreme Court are reasonable.