Respuesta :
Answer:
this article does not change my opinion about courts.
Explanation:Over the years, i have realized that no court is perfect, not even the supreme court. Judgement is based on the jury or how good the lawyer is. if the lawyer can prove beyond reasonable doubt that black is white, then judge will not have choice other than to follow the argument and that is why we sometimes see a murderer walks out of court free and we see an innocent man on death row. So the judgement is not based on the type of court but how good and convincing the lawyers are.
Answer:
1. Robin Conrad and Ralph Nader have opposed views on the current court that appear prominently in the article:
In the views of Robin Conrad, Head of the Litigation team of the U.S Chamber of Commerce. The chamber’s litigation center filed briefs in 15 cases and its side won in 13 of them the highest percentage of victories in the center’s 30-year history. Though the current Supreme Court has a well-earned reputation for divisiveness, it has been surprisingly united in cases affecting business interests. Of the 30 business cases last term, 22 were decided unanimously, or with only one or two dissenting votes. She attributed their victories to the fair judgments of the Liberal & conservative judges that currently adjudicate in the Supreme Court.
She promised to deploy the services of eminent lobbyists to ensure that more pro-business judges are appointed to the Supreme Court if the Democrats wins the Presidential election of 2008. Conrad opined that the effort to maintain the long standing shift in the paradigm from the traditional economic populist court to a pro-business court is needful. She buttressed her point in mentioning that business cases at the Supreme Court typically receive less attention than cases concerning issues like affirmative action, abortion or the death penalty. But recently, there are no economic populists on the court, even on the liberal wing. And ever since John Roberts was appointed chief justice in 2005, the court has seemed only more receptive to business concerns. Forty percent of the cases the court heard last term involved business interests, up from around 30 percent in recent years.
On the contrary, Ralph Nader, founder of Public Citizen for the enforcement of consumer rights was of the populist proclivity. He joined the views of the like of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and David Souter each went out of his or her way to question the use of lawsuits to challenge corporate wrongdoing a strategy championed by progressive groups like Public Citizen but routinely denounced by conservatives as “regulation by litigation.” Nader was a strong advocate of the Supreme Court to concern itself more withe the people-oriented issues than that of the corporate world. Ralph Nader told Jeffrey Rosen of the New York Times Magazine that lawyers were leaving Public Citizen because they were tired of losing, she achieved a look of earnest concern while Conrad differ by saying that they “they lost for a good reason not because they’ve been overpowered or muscled by the big, bad business community, but they’ve lost because reason won.”
2. Does this article change your impression of the Supreme Court?
Yes, it changed my opinion in a huge sense. I learnt from the article that notwithstanding of the losses or winning of cases, that each divide need to lobby for the appointment of the justices who are either pro-business or populist inclined to populate the Supreme Court of the U.S.A. The article has also affirmed the divisiveness of the court but has maintained its integrity in delivering landmark and celebrated judgments and briefs.
The article without mincing, has x-ray the galaxies of the Judges of the economic populist such as William O. Douglas, the former New Deal crusader who served on the court from 1939 to 1975, once unapologetically announced that he was “ready to bend the law in favor of the environment and against the corporations.”
