Supreme Court System
John G. Roberts, Jr. is currently the Chief Justice of United States of America. Dating back to his life, his place of birth is Buffalo, married to Jane Marie and is a father of two. He is an illumine of Harvard College and a holder of a degree in Law from 1976.From 1981-1982, he served as a special assistant in the Us Department of the Attorney General. He equally served in other fields such as an associate counsel to the president, and White House Council Office.
He was appointed to work with the United Court of Appeal for Columbia in 2003. George Bush appointed him as the Chief Justice of the United States of America initiating him into an office from September 29th, 2005.
Under his leadership, John Roberts achieved some notable changes associated with the American court system and law. Some of the strategically change accredited to him include: restructuring academic and institutions, regulating exceeding powers of authority, mitigating the value of humanity, reinforcing the need to embrace morality and responsibility in service amongst other key changes.
Ideologically, John Roberts was associated with conservativeness. However, he changed this ideology and shifted to work with moderation taking a greater part of his life ruling though sticking to his real legacy for instance; he sided with the liberals on campaigns over finance and anti-discrimination law. This transformation for moderation was ideally evoked by his high profile in the line of duty. His stand and ruling enhanced the corporation and union to amend the right to spend finances in elections. Roberts’s decision influenced the public raising a national debate raising politicians and the public voice. This move to a greater extent positively contributed to the well-being of the state limiting political leaders from misusing public domains and finances. He is strategically associated with compromise in his rulings.
In 2005, John Robert’s Supreme Court opinion on the church was based on the unanimous vote. He obtained a support from eight judges. This sitting ruled out the church as an important body that shapes the society through teachings and guidelines. His opinion advocated for freedom of religion and worshiped fighting against criminal prosecution. This ruling was made in the time when the federal government failed to acknowledge the church as a unit of transforming the society by encouraging members of the community to follow the norms. His ruling acted as an eye opener to the state as well as the citizens enhancing openness and transparency in dealing with general property. The developed is a conquering opinion with the public as well as the jury taking the court at a higher caliber regarding initiating change in service delivery and accountability to the citizens. The take on moral reinstated the public and federal view in combating crimes as a measure to create a peaceful society that is safe and sound for humanity. The public domain also got to acknowledge the role of religion in enhancing mutual understanding and corporation.
Unanimously, Robert in collaboration with eight justices ruled that the state should constitutionally withdraw federal funds to higher learning institutions that are dominated by gay practices. He further argued out that the Congress could forcefully force schools to recruit students and stop threatening of withdrawing funds. Equally, Robert advocated for the burn of an unwarranted police search. He arguably recommended that this was a steering force of harassment to the public. However, he reinforced that this was an opening to limit police abuse to spouses. He proposed the need of protecting individual privacy of personal time and property control. He explained that exposing another person to personal belonging would be anticipated as sharing access to his or her personal possession. Arbitrary, Robert believed that prior aims of police force towards the subject in question could ignore their objections. The court embraced his ideas and took them effectively with an exception of terrorism threats that would allow an unwarranted search for national security. The justice reasoning was based on the importance of upholding respect regarding granting personal freedom of private time and property disclosure.
In 2015, the Chief Justice Robert with associate justices applied the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to make a ruling on a case between a Californian resident and an Austrian Railroad in a federal district court after the Californian fall on a train and suffered a traumatic injury. The Justice ruled out that the incident occurred in Australia and was based upon personal conduct, therefore, and it’s outside the Foreign Sovereign Immunities’ Act that safeguards commercial activities. The court analyzed this case and alleged Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act to have overpowered the commercial aspect thereby making a provision for the court to identify the incident under which the tragedy occurred. Following the above case, mixed reactions on the authenticity of the of the ruling taking the administrative unit of the United States as fair by judgment in response to the law evicting particular cases that could be bend by the situation under which the claimed.
Ideally, John Robert exclusively practiced fairness in his ruling. Logical reasoning regarding the constitution as well as the human response to certain cases that he managed compelled him. Drawing examples from the above cases, I would conquer and give a similar ruling as his. He exercised good law that is emulative and efficient in court dealings. Competently, he applied the art of moderation that included incorporating other stakeholders concerns. He felt for the public and saw a need to safeguard the use of public utilities by politicians eliminating the utilization of the public resources to fund activities that do not correspond to the states objectives. Further, Robert expressed his concern about privacy and perpetuated it as a vital role in building confidence and respect hence breaching the privacy means destroying freedom of people. Additionally, he reinforced the need of upholding moral values in the society in collaborating with religious institutions to shape character.
Conclusively, Robert’s ruling is fair and based on humanity in cooperation with the state policies. This as a concern ranks him a good justice who incorporates professionalism, responsibility, accountability, and unity. The fact that he incorporates and at some point, bends the democratic demands depicts him as a flexible Judge not bound by culture, but the social dynamics related to societal needs and concerns.