Before the inauguration of Thomas Jefferson as the president in 1801, sixteen new circuit judgeships were created by the lame-duck federal congress and the organic act number of judgeships that were not specified. Adam filled with the Federalists to preserve judiciary control by his political party and as a way of frustrating the Jefferson list of the legislative and his party. William Marbury from Maryland was the leader of the Federalist Party, and since he was among the last appointments, he didn’t secure his commission before Thomas Jefferson became the president who later, after becoming the president, directed James Madison, who was his secretary, to withhold the commission. Marbury decided to appeal the supreme court to provide a mandamus writ to pressure Madison to act. The court decided to hear the case in its 1803 February term, Marbury vs. Madison.
The court was considered to be moot by both the Republicans and the Federalists, but despite all these political challenges, Marshall acknowledged he had a case that was perfect in expounding a basic principle, with which the supreme court would secure the major responsibility in the interpretation of the constitution. In the court’s decision, Marshall asked three questions and drew a lengthy and careful distinction between the secretary and the president’s political review. The decision was that Marbury had the commission right, which was violated. Therefore, his country’s law should afford a remedy for him. Although the chief justice would have held that the supreme court’s solution to issue a writ of mandamus, he rather declared the court didn’t have the power in issuing such a writ since the act’s relevant provision was unconstitutional.
In the outcome, the political parties played a major role. First, the political parties pressurized Marshall in his decision. The involved political difficulties that were implanted by the political parties motivated Marshall in acknowledging the perfect case for expounding the judicial review. Additionally, both the republican and the federalist viewed the case as moot. However, in my perspective, I think that the argument by Marshall for the judicial review doctrine was not convincing since the 1789 jurisdiction Act was still effective. The act had granted mandamus power to the court in the initial jurisdiction.
Question 2
The Obergefell legal was a case where the supreme court ruled that the state’s ban on the marriage of the same sex and recognition of the same sex’s marriages performed dully in other jurisdictions under the clauses of equal protection and due process of the U.S. constitution 14th amendment is unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy writing for the majority, asserted that marriage right is fundamental and hence protected by the due process clause, which hinders states against depriving any individual liberty, life without the law’s due process. By the close connection virtue between equality and liberty, the right of marriage by the equal protection clause is also guaranteed, therefore forbidding any state to deny any individual.
The masterpiece cakeshop was a case in the U.S. supreme court that was based on whether public accommodations owners can deny particular services regarding the claims on the first amendment of free religion exercise and free speech hence be given an exemption, particularly on denial in the provision of creative services like a custom wedding cake making for a gay couple married concerning the religious beliefs of the owner. The case involved the masterpiece cakeshop that denied making a wedding cake to a gay married couple regarding the owner’s religious beliefs. Specific orders were provided to the barkery by the Colorado Anti-Discrimination law for discrimination against the couple. The bakery decided to take the case to the supreme court following affirmation of the commission’s decision after the appeal. On narrow grounds, the supreme court ruled that the commission failed to recognize the neutrality of the religion, therefore, violating the rights to free exercise of the owner of the masterpiece hence overturned the decision of the commission.
Although the two cases are almost similar, they differ in several aspects concerning couples’ marriage to the same sex. In the Obergefell case, Judge Kennedy advocates for gay marriage’s rights and asserts that the right to marriage can be denied to anybody. However, in the Masterpiece case, the supreme court judges reversed the decision of the commission and asserted that the bakery had the right to deny the gay couple their services on the ground of the owners’ beliefs. The two cases reflect on the challenges faced on freedom mapping in the united states. This is by the contradicting rights and freedoms that make it a headache on the freedom mapping.
Various freedoms in the cases conflict with each other. For example, in the first case, marriage’s legal right between a man and a woman conflict with the fundamental marriage right that cannot be denied to anybody regardless of marriage between couples of the same sex. In the second case, the freedom of speech and religious beliefs of the bakery owner conflicts with the non-discriminatory right. On the decisions asserted by the supreme court, I partially agree. I differ with the decision of the first case based on religious beliefs.