Blog 4

Miranda vs. Arizona-
In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for the crimes of both kidnapping and rape. The police interrogated Miranda without informing him of his Constitutional rights, and during the interrogation Miranda confessed to the crimes. He was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. He appealed first to the Arizona Supreme Court, who agreed with his prior ruling, then to the Supreme court who reviewed his case. With the 5-4 vote, the court ruled in favor of Miranda. The court stated the previous rulings went against both the 5th and 6th amendment. The supreme court held in priority the Constitution in this case. Miranda was charged with serious crimes and they could have overlooked the claim to make him serve out his full sentence. Instead they choose the more important of the two situations and they knew by making this decision, they would also be changing how people were being tried across all legal courts.    

U.S. vs. Nixon-
In 1974, after the Watergate affair, seven of Nixon's closest aid were found guilty of their crimes. The court tried to find any video recording and evidence to find Nixon guilty. Nixon declared executive privilege so he would not have to appear in court. The final decision was unanimous against Nixon, finding him guilty. Usually when a president uses executive privilege, no other branch can use anything against him. It it their power over all for the other branches. Here, the Supreme Court did not abide by the normal rules. With or without his testimony, the court believed with the criminal charges against Nixon he had no right not to testify. The fact he used the executive privilege made him only seem more guilty. The supreme court used activism in this case. Before, no one had really ever challenged the president and his powers. The court dismissed the fact he had executive privilege for the benefit of the case.      

Bush vs. Gore-
On December 8, 2000, the Florida Supreme Court ordered the Circuit Court in Leon County to count 9,000 ballots. They also ordered every county in Florida to recount all ballots where the president vote was not identified. Bush called for the Supreme Court to review the decision. The court voted 5-4 in favor of Bush, stopping the recount of ballots. Both parts of the Supreme court, those who voted for Bush and against him, voted how they did in respect to the constitution. The supreme court used restraint in this case because though the case was important no law was really changed or nothing great came of the ruling.