The Supreme Court and

Civil

Liberties Chapter 18-2

Nine old men: Supreme Court in the 1960s

What are the three branches of our government and what powers do

they possess?• Legislative

– Congress– Make laws

• Executive– President– Enforce laws

• Judicial– Interpret laws

Below: diagram of our national government

How does the Court make decisions?• Based on precedent:

– Previous decisions and laws– Constitution

• Based on current needs of the country:– Laissez faire economics

• Northern Securities Case• Mueller v. Oregon

– Segregation• Plessy v. Ferguson• Brown v. Board of Ed

– Abortion• Roe v. Wade• ?

– War of Civil Liberties• Korematsu v. United States• Racial profiling for terror

suspects

Above: women work in a ‘sweatshop’; below: sign saying ‘white only’

What was the Warren What was the Warren Court?Court?• Supreme Court headed by Earl

Warren (1954-1969)• Noted for its judicial activism

(progressive, if you like it)• Courts named after the chief

justice who presides over them• Earl Warren appointed by

Eisenhower to eliminate a rival• Brown v. Board of Education

(1954) first big ruling• The current Court (group of 9) is

called the Roberts Court, named after Chief Justice John Roberts

above: Earl Warren; below: Supreme Court c. 2007

We’ve learned in the past that it is easy to learn what the constitution says. It is difficult to know what it means. The supreme court does this for us.

Another image of the 9 justices in the late Sixties

Describe the Baker v. Carr case:• Main issue was reapportionment

– Urban congressional districts had less reps (less voting power) than rural districts

• Gerrymandering– Shaping the boundaries of a

district in order to keep political power within a certain groups hands

• Baker case – Court ruled that federal gov.

had power to ensure one man, one vote

• Warren:– Legislators represent people, …

not acres…

Above: our own district (PA 13th); below: a Gerrymandered district

What was at issue in the What was at issue in the Engle v. Vitale & Abington v. Shempp cases? cases?• Prayer in school• 1st amendment

– Prohibits an state-established religion

• Engle v. Vitale – Banned School prayer– in NY a nondenominational prayer

was said after Pledge of Allegiance• Abington v. Shempp

– Banned Bible reading in public schools

• Abington HS read passages from Bible after Pledge

• Current Backlash over Ten Commandments in courthouses

Above: protest against school prayer; below: prayer group starts the day at the school flagpole

What are civil liberties?• Freedom from excessive

or unwarranted government control or intrusion

• set limits for government so that it cannot abuse its power and interfere with the lives of its citizens

• Includes rights listed in 1st Amendment: privacy, free speech…and in other Amendments: fair trial, no boarding soldiers, etc.

Above: cartoon implies fmr. VP Cheney has blasted a hole in the Constitution; below: reporters who broke open Watergate scandal

What does the 6th Amendment say?All citizens have the right to

have the assistance of counsel (a lawyer) for his

defense

•What if you cannot afford an attorney?•When does the right begin?•What if you don’t understand your rights?

Top to bottom: Gideon, Escobedo, Miranda

Discuss Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). • Landmark case in which

Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state courts are required to provide counsel to defendants unable to afford their own attorneys

• Clarence Earl Gideon had been charged with burglary for breaking into a pool hall in Panama City, Florida

• Acted as own attorney• Used the prison library to

research and write (in pencil on prison stationery) to the Supreme Court

• Warren Court ruled in his favor

Above: Gideon close-up; below: text of cartoon is self-explanatory

Describe the Escobedo v. Illinois case.• Supreme Court decision that said

criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations & provided counsel at trial.

• Danny Escobedo's brother-in-law, Manuel, a Chicago convict, was shot and killed on the night of January 19, 1960.

• During police interrogation Escobedo asked to speak to an attorney

• His attorney was left waiting in lobby• He later confessed and was

eventually convicted for aiding and abetting murder of Manuel

• Court said the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a right to counsel begins when defendants become primary suspects

Above: Escobedo mugshot; below: cartoon notes danger of co-defendants working out an alibi

Describe the Miranda v. Arizona case (1966).• Supreme Court decision that said criminal

suspects must be informed of their right to consult with an attorney and of their right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police

• In 1963, Ernesto Arturo Miranda was arrested for rape

• Later confessed to robbery and attempted rape under interrogation by police

• Sentenced to 20 to 30 years imprisonment on each charge

• Arizona Supreme Court emphasized heavily the fact that Miranda did not specifically request counsel

• Warren Court decision said a suspect must be made aware of right to counsel and of 5th Amendment clause that you needn’t testify against self– Miranda himself served 11 years– Made a living autographing Miranda cards– Killed in bar fight in 1976

Miranda Rights:‘You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.’

Above: Miranda mugshot; below: what’s on Miranda card

CivilLiberty

Law and

Order

What is your opinion of these Court decisions?

•Personally?

•From a legal standpoint?

•Have they stood the test of time?

•Is it possible for a decision to be ‘right’ for its time, and not for a later time?

Above: Earl Warren, 1953-69; below: John Roberts 2005-?