Media influence in the Judiciary by Gabrielle Hitchcock

2. Why Are Supreme Court Justices So Important to the US?

ghitchco — 2018-10-12 12:36:08 UTC

“The Judicial Branch.” National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/1600/judicial-branch.

Key Words: Supreme court, nominees, rights, appointed, cases

Summary: The impact of nominees is becoming increasingly confusing in why there is so much attention diverted to our justices. The source begins explaining the framework of what the supreme court is, as the highest court in the country and continues to highlight the importance by describing the consistent effect of law on our daily lives, interpretation is the number one goal of the court and their interpretation is enforced through every level of government and daily activities. Justices must by appointed by the president and which can typically effect the makeup of the court based on their personal ideologies; furthermore, they have to be approved by three-fifths of Senate. Cases reach the Supreme court their varying jurisdiction and can work their way up by petitioning for a writ of certiorari. The source continues underline integral cases as well as justices.
Opinion: Once again, this article is supplementing facts to aide those who are looking to follow in-depth characterization of the Supreme Court. One thing I agree with is that the nominations are heavily influenced by the presidents political standpoint and that can directly effect the justices abilities in reviewing cases, this is both advantageous and potentially harmful to the court. The president and his cabinet can influence precedents and cases to come due to the life terms of these important individuals. On the contrary, it can be debilitating because of the preconceptions of and feelings towards cases that may effect their decisions in what they think is right.
Why is it credible? The source is credible because it lists and cites where they got the information from which means that one is able to research and check their content to see if it is viable. Furthermore, I researched the author to confirm her credibility as a journalist in writing informative articles.

1. The Judicial Branch

ghitchco — 2018-10-15 02:09:16 UTC

“The Judicial Branch.” National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/1600/judicial-branch.

Key Words: Judicial, branches, justices, Congress, courts, interpret

Summary: Article III of the constitution grants rights many rights to Congress regarding regulation in addition to many other courts below the supreme court. This article talks about the impeachment process if a federal judge if they were to commit a crime, the credentials to bring a case for review and the constraints lower courts have from verdicts among the higher courts. One thing the source mentions is that it's the only court regarding the judiciary system mentioned in the constitution and how the presidential nominations have to be approved by Senate. One reason their nominations are so significant is because they have life terms until they chose to resign or pass away. Federal judges don't participate in direct cases therefore placing an emphasis on the interpretation of law. Another important aspect of the Supreme Court is the "writ of certiorari" when review is petitioned from lower courts for further analyzation at a federal level (four of nine justices have to agree). The third portion of the source goes over the judicial process where the fourth, fifth and sixth amendments are highlighted as protections for those accused. Criminal and civil proceedings are judged based on the extent of the case and their process for being appealed to further levels (in which most cases are settled in the court of appeals).
Opinion: In this article I do not think there is much to argue because many of the points given are concrete and empirical evidence given to educate those interested in learning about the judicial system. I agree with all the content on this page because it's stuff that I've learned before and can relate to modern politics and judicial news.
Why is it credible? This article is credible firstly because it's a domain branched off the white house and has ".gov" at the end of it. This portion of the domain means that it is increasingly more credible than a website ending in ".com". Additionally this is information that is unbiased and creates a good source for extracting information to form a more credible argument.

3. Thuillier: It’s time for a conversation about the system of Supreme Court appointments

ghitchco — 2018-10-15 03:41:11 UTC

Thuillier, Marcus. “Thuillier: It's Time for a Conversation about the System of Supreme Court Appointments.” The Daily Northwestern, 15 Oct. 2018, dailynorthwestern.com/2018/10/14/lateststories/thuillier-its-time-for-a-conversation-about-the-system-of-supreme-court-appointments/.

Key Words: Supreme Court, appointees, Senate, president, Chief justices, cloture

Summary: The source begins talking about the recent supreme court nomination in which resulted in one of the most disputed events of our time. The author highlights the importance of reviewing the process of nominations. Furthermore, there is the factor of cloture of three-fifths majority and precedents bringing attention to the "nuclear option" that has pushed certain nominees that created a strategic avoidance within Senate itself. The article is pushed through unto the issue of partisanship, because of this nuclear option there has been an increasing emphasis of approving nominees through matters of belonging to a party rather than the merit of an individual thus desensitizing the tedious processes the branches of government require for appointees. As a solution to this issue, the author proses that increasing the amount of actors would be an integral fix to the problem.
Opinion: This article makes several points unto why the system of approving a supreme court nominee is flawed. I agree on many occasions, I think the "nuclear option" prohibits the execution of a fair trial and process, even more so, it develops a system based on strategic deception to pass a nominee through for a better opportunity among their party. Additionally, I agree that more actors would be significant. Our country is protected through the system of checks and balances and even the process of approving a federal judge can emphasize the flaws within it, the small abuses of power and manipulation must be recognized to better the well being of our nation.

4. The Kavanaugh hearings could shape the Supreme Court — even if he’s not confirmed

ghitchco — 2018-10-27 17:26:10 UTC

Nelson, Michael. “The Kavanaugh Hearings Could Shape the Supreme Court - Even If He's Not Confirmed.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 3 Oct. 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/10/03/the-kavanaugh-hearings-could-shape-the-supreme-court-even-if-hes-not-confirmed/?utm_term=.65f277e849b4.

Key Words: Kavanaugh, Supreme Court, Confirmations, legitimacy, Congress

Summary: In the beginnings of this article, many people assumed that the misconducts of (then) nominee Brett Kavanaugh were making the supreme court come off as less credible and put the legitimacy of the court on the line; however, it would most likely only effect things short term wise. If anything midterm elections may be altered but there are various reasons behind this claim. To measure the legitimacy of the court, scientists utilize an individuals "loyalty to an institution." When asking individuals regarding the courts, they ask them high staked scenarios (such as a justice getting removed for making an unpopular rule or removing the courts as a whole) and judging their rejection as a measure of legitimacy. In the next parts of the article, the author elaborates on the takeaways from the most recent nomination. Firstly, because the supreme court is centered around distinct democratic values (rule of law etc.) it's legitimacy has lasted through lifetimes and continues to do so; additionally, because America is so polarized, decisions tend to cancel hostility out. People are aware that the courts are supposed to be a non-biased/un-partisan institution so whenever many saw media/ads about the case they grew, they began to perceive the courts as a "typical partisan institution." Thirdly, because he is a Trump nomination many of his ruling will likely be very conservative, therefore disappointing other affiliations which could potentially lead to increasing devalues of the court. Lastly, this nomination has highlighted the democrats feelings of unpleasantness with the court which could possibly lead to less public support and one day more legislation created to pare back court decision.
Opinion: This article was very content filled, but I think that though there were points contrasting whether his nomination would shape the court, I personally feel that he will significantly effect the legitimacy through his political party affiliation and core values.
Why is it credible? This article comes from a notoriously credible website "The Washington Post." Secondly, the article had vast sources of empirical data that support its claims. Also, this particular source comes from the "Monkey Cage" which is a mission page dedicated to connection political scientists to relevant issues on their expertise and developing publicly focused scholars.

5. Here's what happened the last time a Supreme Court nominee was accused of sexual misconduct, and how it compares to now

ghitchco — 2018-10-27 18:39:20 UTC

Panetta, Grace. “Here's What Happened the Last Time a Supreme Court Nominee Was Accused of Sexual Misconduct, and How It Compares to Now.” SFGate, Business Insider, 27 Sept. 2018, www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Brett-Kavanaugh-isn-t-the-first-Supreme-Court-13242792.php.

Key Words: Anita Hill. administration, Supreme Court, sexual, Ford, Kavanaugh

Summary: The article briefly begins with the mention of Kavanaugh's nomination and the sexual allegations that were brought up, then it refers to a mirror case with the nomination of Clarence Thomas in 1991. Comparatively, then the board was composed of all male senators essentially grilling Anita Hill and thus started a movement to begin to get more women in jobs within government. The lasting effects and impact of Anita Hill's case could be a very integral part in the outcome of the kavanaugh hearings. Both women in cases share very many similarities in which they both felt compelled by a sense of civic duty to bring their stories to front. The article then brings up the "me too" movement in which women are encouraged to bring their stories to light and find help. While there has been a great involvement in the me too movement, there are similar characteristics of the wya the women are treated between the two cases which is can be potentially worry-some, both have an all-male panel of GOP senators. Though there is a lot to learn from the previous case, the article then continues to highlight some of the advice Anita Hill has this go around. Anita Hill's trial made sexual harassment a mainstream thing to talk about in the media and if this case turns out in favor of Kavanaugh there may very well be an influx of women voting democratic in the midterms as well as more women running for office.
Opinion: Subjectively, I side with Dr.Ford in this situation and seeing the parallels among the two cases is intriguing, it concerns my of the lack of difference in this cases and can inly hope for the utmost respect and dignity carried out in this case thus following the increasing attention to sexual harassment in the workplace.
Why is it credible? Business Insider is a notoriously credible and popular website, the author listed credits and sources at the bottom of the article so it's easy to check the claims

6. How Brett Kavanaugh Could Change the Supreme Court—and America

ghitchco — 2018-11-01 15:56:08 UTC

Bennett, Brian. “Brett Kavanaugh Could Change the Supreme Court and America.” Time, Time, 12 July 2018, time.com/5336621/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court/.

Key Words: Kavanaugh, Ford, Court, Republican, Media, Conservative, Trump

Summary: The article begins talking about Trump's nomination and reasoning behind Kavanaugh, it goes on to highlight his experience in the court and his record on cases that reflect his personal views. He is immensely quintessentially republican and can effect the decisions based on his want for pro-business and encouragement of more executive power. The article continues to go through and talk about his view and standing on cases regarding key issue that create such partisanship in the public, the support from republicans in media and for democrats running in red states pressures for the passing of Kavanaugh regardless of his strong opinions and tendencies to veer prominently right.
Opinion: I think that the sole purpose of a justice is to interpret the law. On behalf of his previous experience on the Court of Appeals, it is seemingly unlikely that he will maintain an objective stance through the issues that arise and could push the court to be partisan when it is meant to be the branch to protect the citizens from overwhelmingly strong government implementations.
Why is it credible? Time is a media source that is popular for obtaining news in magazines and articles, many of the articles are objective (as this one is) and here is bases many of the claims from quotes of what other people have said, empirical evidence and examples. This particular article has many authors which means there were likely an array of views that are significant in balancing one another out.

7. Media Effects on the Judicial Process Definition

ghitchco — 2018-11-01 16:16:55 UTC

"Media Effects on the Judicial Process Definition." LawTeacher.net. 11 2013. All Answers Ltd. 10 2018 .

Key Words: Media, Courts, Coverage, Broadcasting, Process

Summary: This can be highlighted by the following statement: in setting up these rules, fairness and consistency have to be ensured to facilitate the application of fundamental justice. Over the years we've seen an increasing amount of media allowed in the court. It references the media in the famous O.J Simpson case and Rodney King, and continues to go into the effects of the media. There is a propensity to bring cases to light in the media especially highlighting those who are famous, and there is a debate on whether if media is a positive in relation to the judicial process. The media most commonly, informs the public but sometimes alters reception of the audience. There has been much discussion regarding if media should or should not be permitted in the court room. Proponents commonly emphasis that it's a constitutional right to have access and makes for a fair trial and promotes democracy (by protecting everybody's rights) it also yields a sense of transparency into the courts and allows for insight from/for the public. In comparison, opponents of media are concerned about the tension of the accused and the jury which can result in negative court proceedings. Furthermore, the separation of powers may be slightly compromised. The etiquette of the court is diminished through the media exposure in trials especially in keeping individuals protected also because not everything is typically covered correctly, there are plenty of cases of misinterpretation, in covering cases some reporters may be prejudiced prior to hearing all sides so they might automatically cover points and people who align with their beliefs.
Opinion: I personally like this article because it shows both sides of why the media can be influential on cases; furthermore, it presents it objectively so I was able to agree with one side. I believe that in many cases it can lead to misinterpretation which is unfortunate because the media could be a tool to help everyone in the situation and help inform general public.
Why is it credible? This is an academic article written and supported by the organization of law essay professionals. Additionally, it was peer reviewed so it's most likely more credible than a regular article.

8. Evolution of the Media’s Role in U.S. Supreme Court Nominations

ghitchco — 2018-11-12 13:51:05 UTC

Davis, Richard, Political and Media Factors in the Evolution of the Media’s Role in U.S. Supreme Court Nominations (October 20, 2014). Oñati Socio-Legal Series, Vol. 4, No. 4, 2014. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2512155

Key Words: Evolution, press, public opinion, governing, courts, senator, legislator

Summary: This is an academic journal so it is very in depth regarding the topic of the evolution of the media in the Supreme court. I extracted a few sections to focus on. In the first section it mainly focused on how supreme court nominations are a tedious process and introduces the question of what occurred into making quick, unanimous decisions into such lengthy and partisan processes. It also introduces that there are three main factors that can be attributed to this change (norms in public involvement, fragmentation and resulting tension within institutional processes). The first focuses on how the selection of public officials has been drastically expanded for the public to have influence (17th amendment) and there are higher education levels that directly mean a better informed public=political efficacy. In addition to that, there is an expectation of the American people for a sense of transparency in government, to expound on this, there is an increasing amount of what is revealed to the public. This has directly correlated to supreme court nominations by the public being able to shape the other players who nominate them. Through litmus tests and other opinions, nominees now have to appeal to the general public (bc he/she is deemed with being a representative of the view of the public). Media coverage has stimulated the role of the public in the democratization of the selection. Secondly, the fragmentation/tension within institutional processes created a diffusion of power in which power is sometimes unevenly dispersed which means that media can have a presence ad

10. From Sketch Pads to Smart Phones: How Social Media Has Changed Coverage of the Judiciary

ghitchco — 2018-11-24 22:02:22 UTC

State Court Web Sites | National Center for State Courts, www.ncsc.org/sitecore/content/microsites/future-trends-2011/home/Social-Media/2-4-How-Social-Media-Has-Changed-Coverage-of-the-Judiciary.aspx.

Key Words: Senate, Congress, Technology, Trials, Editor, News, Audience

Summary: This article begins by describing the Christian-Newsome murder case in which social media was closely tied to and made an infamous trial. This new style of reporting and technology has caused a whirlwind of adaptation in the world of journalism, government and casual media. This can directly effect our highest courts in a multitude of ways. Firstly, news has become rapidly dished out from the ease technology has produces and because of this ease, essentially everyone can be a journalist, anybody can create a blog and create an impact. Furthermore, because anyone can be a journalist now there is no filters to go through in order to publish something. Making false claims is as easy as ever and reporters have to decide whether what to report in the courts, to corroborate the details. However, this huge platform allows media to educate and reach a new audience larger than prior years and creates a normalcy about discussing judiciary actions/cases for more recognition. Lastly, there are provisions that the courts can potentially take to find a medium for allowing technology into the courts. By updating the rules in including smart phones they can better facilitate the activity and appropriate what is allowed. Using social media as a mouthpiece to educate the public, set guidelines and standards for professionals in what they are allowed to cover and monitor the conversation to prevent any misconceptions to better inform the public.
Opinion: I think the fact that media is having such an increased presence in our courts is definitely not a bad thing, the ability to inform people about issues that matter is such an advantage than we did 20 years ago. Having that recognition allows for a more diverse group of people and can help cases to come in the future. However, there are provisions that the courts should implement to protect the information, the people and the credibility of our nation, I agree fully with the suggestions described.
Why is it credible? This comes from NCSC.org which has the domain of the organization that funds it, furthermore, because it comes from the national center for state courts that likely means that it's a website typically used for objective information for people to use. Lastly, it was found on Atkins library database which likely means it's either peer reviewed or deemed credible enough for students to use.

9. Judiciary: Functions, Importance and an Essential Quality of Judiciary

ghitchco — 2018-11-29 16:44:38 UTC

“Judiciary: Functions, Importance and an Essential Quality of Judiciary.” Your Article Library, 17 May 2014, www.yourarticlelibrary.com/essay/law-essay/judiciary-functions-importance-and-an-essential-quality-of-judiciary/40352.

Key Words: Function, Importance, Judiciary, Guilty, Interpretation, Rule-Making

Summary: This articles begins by talking about the general importance of the judiciary, it keeps the people safe and protected from the other two branches of government. It's functions a branch include, giving justice to people, interpreting cases and applying laws to them in order to decide fairly on a case, helps shape law making because their precedents dictate what the legislation is permitted to establish, determine the right legislation if something is contradictory to one another and guards the very words of the Constitution our fore fathers created. Additionally, it settles disputes between federal government and states, controls its administration and advises among certain commissions. It also highlights that only without the interference of the other branches, can they perform their highest responsibilities.

Opinion: This article consistently yields factors that corroborate their importance among our government. While some people may focus on the importance of the legislative branch and the executive branch they commonly disregard the importance of the courts. They truly are an integral piece of our government and have the citizen's interests in mind as they make every decision.

Why is it credible? This article was peer reviewed so we can trust that it was deemed a credible