The Supreme Court operating in the United States exercises its appellate jurisdiction in cases presented before federal as well as state courts. In the American constitution, Article 3 establishes its mandate. In 1789, the judicature’s composition in addition to its composition became apparent as a result of the Judiciary Act’s prerequisites. Moreover, the Judiciary Act which was implemented in 1869 requires the appointment of a chief justice and justices operating on an associate basis for the Court. The tenure provided for every justice lasts up to their death or circumstances which results in their removal from office. In addition, resignation or retirement also brings to their period of service. The occurrence of vacant positions mandate fresh presidential appointments with the Senate’s advice as well as consent. Justices must offer their opening statements before a Senate Judiciary Committee. In most cases, jurors make a decision at a rate of 65 to 80% in light of the case presented. However, it does not serve as a basis for them to change their perspective. Even so, most of the closing arguments presented by jurors often present their tentative decision. The current paper aims at comparing and contrasting the opening statements presented by current sitting judges presiding over America's Supreme Court.
The Judges’ Background
Brett Kavanaugh appointments sought to fill the vacancy left by Justice Anthony Kennedy upon his retirement. Kavanaugh took his oath in 2018 after President Donald Trump's nomination (Thayer, 2018). On the other hand, Neil Gorsuch served as an appeals judge in Colorado’s federal court. In 2017, President Donald Trump elected him as Justice Scalia’s replacement. His confirmation occurred in 2018. Judge Sotomayor assumed office after President Barack Obama's appointment which occurred in 1991. With a vote of 68-31, Senate favored the decision (Keneally, 2018). Initially, President George Bush had nominated Sotomayor to New York’s court which operated in the Southern District. In her capacity, she dispensed her services up to 1998. In the Court of Appeals which operates in the second circuit, Sotomayor for not less than 11 years after President Bill Clinton selected her. In 2009, Elena Kagan’s appointment resulted in her occupation a position as America's solicitor general. In 2010, President Obama elected Kagan as a member of the nation's Supreme Court. The Senate voted confirming the decision at 63 to 37. Initially, she worked as a clerk in the Supreme Court under Justice Thurgood Marshall’s jurisdiction in 1987.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Similarities between the Different Opening Statements
The judges present factual information before the Senate Judiciary Committee. For instance, Kavanaugh presents facts in light of the accusations made from an incident which had been organized in highschool ( in the past 36 years ) (Call, 2018). As a means of authenticating his claims, Kavanaugh refers to Leland Keyser’s statement which was made after indicating that untruthful details could result in penalties commonly associated with felonies. In addition, the judge uses quotes indicated in a letter obtained from Keyser’s attorney. The respective judges must demonstrate their understanding of major standards in addition to terms applicable in legal situations. During the confirmation hearing, the justices underscored the constitution's supremacy. Hence, it fosters the efficient integration of the data available to provide a convincing opening statement.
Upon their nominations, the individuals strove to organize their openings before making their presentation to the Senate Judiciary Committee. They rely on chronologically arranged information to earn favor from the bench. Furthermore, the nominees extensively consider how they placed key information. Under such circumstances, it becomes possible for them to capitalize on the effects commonly associated with primacy as well as recency. At the beginning, they focus on acknowledgements. As the session progresses, they move to their respective narratives. Moreover, they elaborate on the aspects necessary for individuals to become exceptional judges in the Supreme Court. Lastly, they highlight how they intend to integrated institution into the cases handled.
In addition, the judges use a similar approach when commencing with their opening statements. They observe the protocols applicable when making appearances before the Senate Judiciary Committee. For example, all the judges recognize the chairman responsible for exercising some jurisdiction over the proceedings, and the members formulating the committee. More specifically, Brett M. Kavanaugh thanks senators such as Dianne Feinstein, Rob Portman in addition to Lisa Blatt for the positive introductions they make on his behalf. He also acknowledges Condoleezza Rice’s input. Moreover, Neil Gorsuch also appraises Dianne Feinstein during his confirmation hearing. Similarly, Elena Kagan acknowledges senator sessions (C-SPAN, 2010). In comparison, judge Sotomayor pleasantly acknowledges her introductions as made by Charles Ellis Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand. Furthermore, all the judges indicate meeting senators as they make their ‘ courtesy visits .’ As a result, judge Kavanaugh appreciates the efforts of 65 senators. In light of the calls, Sotomayor mentions her meetings in 50 states (SenateDemocrats, 2009). On the other hand, Neil Gorsuch Acknowledges meeting more than 70 senators while at Washington DC (C-SPAN, 2017). Moreover, the nominees thank the respective presidents for their nominations. Apart from political figures, they appraised all the individuals who worked towards guaranteeing their success. For instance, they acknowledge their immediate family members, mentors, work colleagues and students.
Judges in confirmation proceedings endeavor to establish a connection with jury members. As opposed to leading directly from their scripts, they establish eye contact with jurors thus, underscoring their familiarity with the issues at hand. In some cases, the use outlines sparingly to guide the course of their opening statements. For instance, Brett Kavanaugh only looks down while reading documents which provide some vindicating information to address the accusations made by other politicians (Call, 2018). In comparison, Sotomayor shifts her outlines to one side as she eloquently addresses the jurors while briefly glancing at her opening statement materials (SenateDemocrats, 2009). In comparison, Elena Kagan establishes a balance with regards to looking at the documents containing information pertaining to the confirmation hearing and the frequency at which she surveys the audience (C-SPAN, 2010). The strategy also applies during Neil Gorsuch’s hearing.
In addition, the judges use the opportunity provided to communicate why they believe that their cause possesses some sincere justification. Most of the nominees underscore the values instilled by other prominent individuals affiliated with the American legal system. As a result, it sheds light on how they intend to contribute to their respective roles. For example, Elena Kagan describes Justice John Paul Stevens’ desirable attributes. Judge Stevens offers an impetus for Kagan to appraise values such as independence, integrity coupled with humility and treating the court with reverence which emanates from devotion at personal levels (C-SPAN, 2010). Similarly, Judge Kavanaugh underscores the mandate of justices in operating independently to ensure the laws’ efficient interpretation without necessarily developing new legal requirements. Moreover, Justice Kavanaugh notes Judge Anthony Kennedy’s role in facilitating his understanding on collegiality coupled with civility. In 1993, Kavanaugh performed a law clerk’s responsibilities under judge Kennedy. The experience facilitated his acquisition of the concept that the judiciary’s independence provided an impetus for those involved to ensure the liberty in multi-faceted circumstances. In comparison, Justice White enabled Neil Gorsuch to master the art of dispensing his mandate without fear.
In addition, Kavanaugh provides an elaboration on factors attributable to exceptional judges which underscore their commitment. He states that ‘A good judge must be an umpire’ (Thayer, 2018, n.p). Thus, they must work as impartial arbitrators without favoring specific parties or policies. Under such circumstances, affiliation with the Supreme Court necessitates the capacity to withstand public pressure without bending to its will. Moreover, Justice Neil Gorsuch explains that rulings on different cases must be tempered by a judge’s courage. Furthermore, he makes elaborations indicating a judge’s temperament while interacting with other members of the judiciary. While working under the jurisdiction of Justice Kennedy, Gorsuch indicates that some cases result in disagreements among judges. However, respect must always characterize their interactions when deciding on all legal cases. Gorsuch underscores the importance of understanding the opinions issued under legal circumstances. As a result, judges must always defend the laws’ prerequisites (C-SPAN, 2017). For instance, Neil Gorsuch reviews his participation in more than 2700 appeals. From the total, federal lawsuits mandate the intervention of the courts of appeals at a rate of 5%. The assertions made by the judge indicate the cases’ capacity to cover the United States continent at a margin of 20%. However, they mandate of the integration of varying perspectives. Under such circumstances, it became possible for Gorsuch to ensure that decisions were unanimously made for litigation procedures at 97%.
The Differences between the Different Opening Statements
Most of the judges incorporate stories to eliminate boredom among the jurors. Through narratives, judges make their opening statements effective as well as engaging. However, the judges select their words differently to foster a positive psychological impact on the audience present at the confirmation hearing. For example, Sonia Sotomayor offers explanations pertaining to her family background. Sotomayor’s Puerto Rican parents strove to provide a life which aligned with American values for their children. Moreover, they emphasized on the importance of education and provided an exemplary model for Sotomayor and her brother (SenateDemocrats, 2009). As a result of the efforts, Sotomayor’s mother joined the nursing profession regardless of the challenges faced. Similarly, Kagan’s narrative echoes similar sentiments as Sotomayor’s statement in light of one of the parents pursuing education to improve their livelihood. Her mother participated in classes aimed at facilitating her understanding and ability to converse in English. Thus, she pursued a career in teaching whereas Kagan’s father became a lawyer. Such circumstances enabled the family to enjoy the American Dream’s provisions. As a result, they overcame the challenges commonly suffered by immigrant communities. In comparison, Neil Gorsuch recounts on his humble beginnings as a lawyer where he appraises his spouse (C-SPAN, 2017). However Kavanaugh elects to rely on a different approach to address allegations pertaining to his sexual preferences. Instead, the opportunity to present an opening statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee offered an avenue for him to address the evidence provided to avert any damages his reputation. Even so, judges such as Sonia Maria Sotomayor and Elena Kagan digressed from Kavanaugh's approach.
As some of the judges present their opening statements, underscore the commitments made by jurors with regards to the positions held. Elena Kagan states that justices practice “ reason and principle ” while indicating an immense capacity to guide the nation in living according to the prerequisites indicated by the law (C-SPAN, 2010, n.p). Through the Supreme Court, judges have access to a platform necessary in administering law rated processes democratically. On the other hand, Brett Kavanaugh emphasizes on his straight forward judicial philosophy (Call, 2018). Furthermore, he indicates that it provided a basis for deciding on over 2000 cases and developing written documents for at least 300 opinions. She asserts that judges must indicate our continued commitment to serve impartial justice. Sotomayor’s philosophy relates to ensuring that all legal decisions highlight for fidelity to the laws’ precepts (SenateDemocrats, 2009). Furthermore, her statement elaborates on the commitments that bind justices. For instance, statute interpretation mandates adhering to their respective terms In addition to Congress’ intent. Moreover, the processes rely on the efficient application of Circuit Court precedents and those affiliated with the Supreme Court.
Opening statements provide an avenue for the legislators to highlight their understanding of functions relating to the Supreme Court. For example, Elena Kagan uses her perspective which emanates from dispensing roles affiliated with the solicitor general position (C-SPAN, 2010). As a result, her opening statement underscores the possibility of handling various cases from different fields relying on her previous duties which involved comprehensively reviewing issues pertaining to campaign finance in addition to national security. Moreover, examining criminal law provides a basis for an individual analysis that yields impeccable results. Regardless of the cases involved, justices must avert circumstances in which they indicate a tendency to rely on personal as well as policy-related preferences.
Common Themes or Narratives That the Different Prospective (At That Time) Justices Pursued During Their Opening Statements
Themes enable jurors to understand a case’s conceptual framework. As a result, it becomes easier for them to understand specific facts pertaining to respective opening statements. The justices use themes with emotional undertones to create strong impressions necessary in aiding the panel in delivering a verdict. Through the account given, it becomes easier to ensure that jurors understand matters from the nominees’ perspective. As opposed to merely reviewing facts as outside observers, the judges vying for positions in the Supreme Court transform their audience into actors in their respective narratives. Under such circumstances, the jurors can exercise empathy when dealing with the elected justices. Moreover, judges consistently focus on themes relating to the law’s interpretation. Moreover, the themes highlight the importance of impartiality when deciding on cases while pursuing liberal activism in judicial matters.
How the Prospective (At That Time) Justices Pursued Their Themes or Narratives in Their Opening Statements
The opening statement made by Brett Kavanaugh conveys his anger with respect to the assertions made regarding his inability to protect women's dignity. Kavanaugh explains his beliefs with respect to the immorality associated with sexual misdemeanor. Moreover, he explores the theme of equality in circumstances involving women. As such, he asserts a tendency to refrain from instances which subjected women to inhuman treatment. He indicates that by following due processes, females can access the provisions commonly enshrined in the United States ‘rule of law’. Furthermore, the circumstances provide an avenue to examine the allegations made by Dr. Ford. Kavanaugh uses legal documents issued by different key witnesses to discredit the claims.
Elena Kagan asserts highlight themes pertaining to impartiality coupled with judicial restraint. Thus, she underscores the prerequisites enshrined in the constitution indicating that every individual must enjoy their liberty. In the same breath, Neil Gorsuch uses Alexander Hamilton’s quote. It asserts that effectively applying the law ensures that judges uphold liberty. However, it becomes compromised when justices make attempts to legislate. In addition, it would sabotage the nation’s democracy. Furthermore, Kagan indicates that the constitution highlights the rights, privileges, coupled with the provisions necessary in ensuring that equality prevails. As such, the Supreme Court wields the responsibility of ascertaining that the rule of law prevails. In such circumstances, it becomes imperative to ensure even-handedness in litigation processes, restraint as well as the effective application of principles. In her opening statement, Kagan explains that court proceedings must disregard an individual's station, power and wealth thus availing similar processes and protections. As a result, it becomes possible for every American to become part of impartial judicial processes.
In pursuit of a similar theme as Kagan (impartiality), Neil Gorsuch postulates his contribution to the system which dispenses justice in America. Gorsuch explains that in his 10 years tenure, he endeavored to ensure fair and respectful treatment for individuals who brought their issues to court (C-SPAN, 2017). For instance, he draws on his experience while making decisions involving Native Americans guarantee the effective protection of their tribal lands. In addition, Gorsuch also underscores his input in fairly presiding over a class action which required Colorado's corporations to compensate victims after causing pollution from nuclear wastes. During the opening statement, Gorsuch sheds light on his efforts to ensure justice dominates proceedings from carefully reviewing the facts presented.
Sotomayor explores the theme of consequential decision-making. She explains that her career which spans for 17 years underscored the consequences of legal decisions on people. Similar to Kagan’s perspective, she acknowledges the importance of dispensing justice impartially. As a result, Sotomayor asserts the importance of structuring her judicial opinions in accordance to the laws’ requirements (SenateDemocrats, 2009). Moreover, it provides an impetus for explaining why positions indicating some contradiction become either acceptable or subjected to rejection.
Conclusion
Opening statements provide an impetus through which judges can captivate the audiences in their confirmation hearings. However, its successful presentation mandates the incorporation of different aspects. Opening statements account for the first procedures that must be conducted in trials. Moreover, they determine the direction applicable for judicial proceedings. Their content often enables the participants to assist jurors in making decisions on the suitability of nominees to acquire appointments as justices for the Supreme Court. Opening statements provide factual information to ensure the validity of the details provided. Maintaining the audience’s attention often results in the incorporation of narrative which aligns with a nominee’s theme. Brett Kavanaugh, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch make use of opening statements during their confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
References
Call, R. (2018, September 27). Watch: Brett Kavanaugh's Full Opening Statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYxt45rKogo
C-SPAN. (2010, June 28). Elena Kagan Opening Statement [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkVwvlpXUk
C-SPAN. (2017, March 20). Neil Gorsuch faces Senate Judiciary Committee [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFD1U3y6bO4
Keneally, M. (2018, November 30). Meet all of the sitting Supreme Court justices ahead of the new term. ABC News . Retrieved from https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/meet-sitting-supreme-court-justices/story?id=37229761
SenateDemocrats. (2009, July 13). Judge Sotomayor's Opening Statement - Senate Confirmation Hearing [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgimID6nsNI
Thayer, E. (2018, September 4). Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Opening Statement: Full Prepared Remarks and Video. The New York Times . Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/04/us/politics/judge-brett-kavanaughs-opening-statement-full-prepared-remarks.html
