Political/Ideological Position of Chief Justice John Roberts (Essay Sample)

Student's Name
Professor's Name
Course
Date
Chief Justice John Roberts: His politics, Ideology, and Strategic Manners
Introduction
New Supreme Court chief justice John Roberts took office on September 29, 2005. Irrespective of how he got there, John Glover Roberts Jr., who would become the nation's chief justice, was known for his brains and charisma from the start of his political career. He was born to Rosemary and John Glover, aka Jack. Long Beach, Indiana, was John's home for the rest of his life, along with his three sisters, after moving there when he was four years old. When John Roberts started kindergarten, he had access to high-quality educational opportunities. A well-known all-male Catholic boarding school called La Lumiere School was also attended by Roberts while growing up in La Porte, Indiana. At the age of twenty, a letter written by Roberts indicated his desire for the best possible work and education; he was not satisfied with simply having a successful career. Considering how dedicated Roberts was in school, it is no surprise that he was also known for his participation and well-roundedness. Along with his duties as captain of the varsity football team, he was active in the choir, student government, and the school newspaper. While Chief Justice Roberts was on the Court, much attention was paid to his efforts to maintain the Court's independence from executive and legislative branches and to establish the Court's legitimacy as a neutral arbiter above ideological and partisan politics.
Political/Ideological Position of Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts believes in the following of the law to the latter. First, Roberts tried to affect the outcome of Georgia v. Randolph by drawing on precedent in his first dissent. The Supreme Court ruled that police had no constitutional authority to search without a warrant if one resident agreed to the search, but the other protested. An altercation between Scott Randolph's wife and the police was reported, and officers were dispatched to his home to deal with the situation. During a search of his house, police officers discovered cocaine in Randolph's possession. Despite Randolph's reservations, and though the cops did not have a warrant in their possession, his wife consented to the search (Stone 36). Randolph argued that the search was illegal since he objected, but the prosecution claimed that the wife's permission was a sufficient basis for the investigation. The Fourth Amendment does not apply if a single resident objects to a search, regardless of whether the other residents agree or not.
When it comes to influencing other family members who spoke in favor of the majority decision, Justice Souter believes that co-inhabitants may have an impact. When the Supreme Court decided in Minnesota v. Olsen that overnight guests have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their temporary lodgings, he found this to be an appropriate analogy to draw. When a person refuses to allow police to search their home, the Fourth Amendment does not apply. The majority of judges agreed with this conclusion. A minority of judges, on the other hand, ruled that the Fourth Amendment did apply. Roberts, the Chief Justice, who issued the first dissent in his tenure as Chief Justice, said that the Supreme Court had created new constitutional law with its decision. Roberts believed that cohabiting individuals accept the danger that their personal belongings may be accessed because of the relationship and the Supreme Court judgments. Because of this, Roberts fears that law enforcement's ability to protect abusive spouses will be limited. He had something to say.
Roberts then asserted that precedent under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution had already established the correct method. To substantiate his position, he cited pertinent case law. When Roberts spoke out against the majority's disregard for judicial restraint, he made it abundantly plain that he disagreed with the result. It is only with the consent of someone who has the legal authority to permit the search that police can conduct a warrantless search. According to Roberts, the majority's interpretation of the Fourth Amendment has profoundly impacted Fourth Amendment precedent. When it came time to analyze whether the Fourth Amendment had been violated in this instance, the Court had veered from history and inserted new criteria. The Chief Justice's unhappiness was apparent. A.T. Massey Coal Co, Inc was another case in which Roberts used a clever strategy to support his dissenting conclusion. To ensure fairness, judges must step down if they have a natural bias or financial interest. This provision is still applicable in cases where there are indications of discrimination, as determined by the Supreme Court.
When mining firm president Hugh Caperton sued the A.T. Massey Coal Company, claiming that it engaged in tortious interference, false misrepresentation, and concealed information, it was compelled to close its doors. A jury in West Virginia ruled in Caperton's favor during the trial, awarding him $1 million in damage as a result. Because the CEO of Massey Energy had donated $1 million to Justice Benjamin's candidacy for a seat on the Supreme Court of Appeals in the previous election, Caperton argued that Justice Benjamin's participation, in this case, would create an unacceptable impression of impropriety (Stone 45). The majority of the Court decided that Justice Benjamin must withdraw himself from the case since just the possibility of actual bias was required to disqualify him from the procedure and not prejudice itself. This result is that the majority's search for bias was based on an artificial degree of likelihood, which Judge Roberts pointed out. A judge can only be disqualified from serving in two cases based on the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. There had been a concern that the verdict might tarnish public confidence in the Court's impartiality, which Chief Justice John Roberts stated.
The majority's ambiguous views on the case resulted in 40 more points of ambiguity for him. In this instance, Roberts wanted to avoid creating a rule that would be misapplied to similar situations, resulting in an overflow of unmanageable due process litigation. For the sake of an extraordinary case involving vastly disproportionate sums of money, the majority of the Court deviated from a long-standing and evident constitutional rule, according to Roberts. His approach was to avoid a floodgates problem by showing judicial restraint, which most of the Court did not appreciate. It seems that he was hoping that the Supreme Court would override its ruling and allow judges to function as the sole arbiters of judicial impartiality in future trials. Roberts assessed each case on a case-by-case basis in the criminal court system because there are no general applications.
The Supreme Court has determined that a minor who has been convicted of non-homicide and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole may not have the punishment applied retrospectively. The case of Graham v. Florida served as a great illustration of this point of view. Armed robbery and assault and battery charges against Graham were perpetrated when he was sixteen, while he was still a high school student, by him and two accomplices. Graham was apprehended and charged with robbery six months after the house invasion. Although Graham initially claimed that he had not violated the terms of his plea deal, he later conceded that he had done so (Stone 39). Graham was sentenced to life in prison and fifteen years in jail after being convicted of armed burglary and attempted armed robbery. A life sentence without the possibility of parole in Florida was essentially transformed to a period of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole once the state's parole system was abolished. According to the majority of the Court's judgment, minors who commit non-homicide offenses will be sentenced to life in prison without the chance of release.
He agreed that Graham should not have been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of release, but Roberts blasted the majority for failing to limit its holding to just a few years. In addition, because it is impossible to predict whether or not a criminal would pose a long-term threat to society at the time of sentencing, a sentence of this length deprives the juvenile of the opportunity to grow and mature. Although Roberts could have developed a new constitutional criterion with a shaky history, he relied on Supreme Court precedent instead. Limited proportionality was required in the case of Roper v. Simmons and other rulings where juveniles and adults were not held to the same level of guilt. To provide lower courts with a clear and consistent path to follow when conducting the narrow proportionality examination, the Supreme Court ruled that precedent required this form of deferential evaluation to involve an analytical comparison between crime and penalty.
Strategic Model Relative to Justice Roberts' Opinion in Carpenter v. United Stated (2018)
The fourth amendment is meant to protect citizens from government officials who may otherwise compromise their privacy and security. In the case of Camara v. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco, the Supreme Court concluded. Katz v. the United States is a landmark case that charted the evolution of the Fourth Amendment theory from its origins as a response to common-law trespass to its current status. Even if the federal government's surveillance powers expand into previously unexplored territory, courts will need to devise new strategies for protecting citizens' privacy from the federal government as technology advances. According to ...