The implications of this cartoon is that the concept of placing the judges in supreme court is based on diversity. I know that there are 4 conservatives,one swing vote,and 4 are liberals.the court is based on judicial restraint and judicial activism in which activism is based on ideal beliefs on what is right and wrong.Judcial restraint for other judges follow the laws of constituition and have no favoritism.
Thank you for responding.Which justices would you expect to show judicial activism? What about judicial restraint? Why? Is there truly diversity on the Supreme court? Why or why not?
The justices that i think show judicial activism is the ones that stand out like yale and judicial restrain is that all who had went to harvard and i guess there is diversity because everyone has different ideas and facts of their own so yes i believe so
I belive the implications of this political cartoon is to show the different mixture the supreme court has as today . Though this wouldn't be possible with the 4th amendment , This weak I learned that are 9 people called the "Rule Of Ninths" , I also, know that 4 of them are Liberals (want to see change) the other 4 are Conservative (want to keep things the same does not want to see a change) and the only one that's left is a Swing Vote (breaks the tie) .
This political cartoon is implying that the diversity that is apparent in the Supreme Court is superficial at best. The members may be somewhat racially diverse, but in their mind they are all the same. This is made clear through their robes which show that all the members either went to school at Yale or Harvard. They came from the same institutions and were taught the similar ways of thinking. They are all either activists or restraint, liberal or conservative, republican or democratic. In a government with ideas that are as black and white as their robes how can it be diverse? It isn't.
Excellent response. Can you provide an example of this lack of diversity can impact the larger body of people who the Supreme Court judges laws for. What is the significance of your viewpoint.
Living in a country with a large and diverse population such as the United States, when there isn't proper representation in the government it can cause radical thoughts to spread and chaos to reign. They(the people) wold feel belittled and ignored and would seek to seize hold of the government and make good of their right to overthrow the government and to instate one that would better reflect the people. Someone who has the skill and background to make it to Ivy league schools such as Yale and Harvard and graduate may not know what is best for a minority in South L.A. who has worked all their life and might be lucky enough to get a degree from the local community college if they even make it through high school. The Harvard graduate may not understand the importance of a law that would affect single parent households. They might not understand why so many struggling people would say no to laws that would benefit the doctors and lawyers of the world.
I believe that the implications of the political cartoon would be that the president is glad that there is different thinking or opinions between the judges , for example some judges believe in the constitution and what the constitution said was right these are judicial restrain. Wile in the other hand there are activist judges go with what they believe is best.
Look closer. Are they truly diverse? Why or why not?
I think they are diverse as they all think different they would most likely at times think or have different opinions , this because some are Harvard and some are Yale . For a reason there are nine people in there like so that there would always be a winning side with no tie.
the all are nine in total because the all have to vote and the both can not be even because the you are goin to have and equal vote and not gonna dicied on what vote wins thats why the are not 8 and theres 9 so the wont have the same vote one swing , 4 liberal and 4 conservatives of the others, is that right
The concept of this cartoon show how the president picks the judges for the supreme court. It show how the government play the game of illusion tricking the people. Telling the people is diversity but in reality all the judges come from the same place.
I believe that in this cartoon it is demonstrating the different ideas which the judicial restraint and the judicial activism. In this cartoon i believe that the judicial restraints are the the judges that come from Harvard because they follow the rules of the constitution. Leaving the others from Yale as the judicial activism meaning they go based on what they believe is right.
I believe the implications of this political cartoon is that the supreme court justices are becoming more racially diverse. Another way its becoming more diverse is by the equal number of liberalists as conservatives with Obama bringing Sotamayor to even out the playing field. And one swing vote just in case. There is a good ammount of judicial restraint and judicial activism between the supreme court to keep it fair in any case.
One big reason to say its not diverse is that they all went to the same to the same two colleges Yale and Harvard which are on the same league. Its not a requirement for a supreme court justice to go to those shcools though they are specifically preferred and will be chosen for that reason.
The implications of the political cartoon is the supreme court is growing in diversity.Although 4 are conservative,4 are liberal,and 1 is a swing they all came from two very similar schools.Which would mean their over view isn't all that different so the diversity in this case wouldn't be much help at all.
what I know about the Supreme Court is that have 9 Associate justice workers and that they all represent the supreme Court...
The implications of this cartoon provides a concept that, the supreme courts liberal justices all come from Yale. While on the other hand the supreme courts conservative justices come from Harvard. Based off this information I can imply that Harvard is a conservative school that doesn't like change. While Yale is open to change because they harbor liberals.
I believe the concept of this cartoon is to show how in reality the justice isn't as what they seem .In the cartoon it shows how 3 are from Yale & 6 from Harvard . what I mean by this is the judges all come from the same educational background . They don't view things from our perspective but from their perspective of the rules of the constitution .
i know that 4 of these judges are conservative and the other 4 are liberals. 1 of them is a swing. they wouldn't be a u.s citizen without the 14th amendment. in this political cartoon the president sees diversity in the supreme court. he likes how the judges are different races. some judges are restraint, meaning they go by the constitution while some judges are activism, meaning they think about the problem.
The implications this cartoon makes is that is a lack of diversity because the 9 judges are divide into 3. 4 are liberal ,4 are conservative ,and the other is the swing. The supreme court includes judicial Activism and judicial restraint. The liberal judges obviously would show a judicial activism and the conservative will show a judicial restraint. This cartoon also shows how judges are put on the supreme court because it shows how most judges came from the university of Yale or Harvard.