Explain the dissenting opinions of Justices Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy, including your understanding of their arguments and whether the arguments are valid.

Introduction

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is a limitation on both state and federal government power to make arrests, search people and their property, and seize objects and contraband, such as illegal drugs or weapons. These policy limits are the bedrock of search and seizure law and are ultimately at the root of your right to privacy.

Preparation

Analyze the following U.S. Supreme Court case:

Instructions

Write a 34 page paper in which you:

Prepare a two-page case brief of Carpenter v. United States and the Supreme Courts extension of Fourth Amendment protection to cell phones and locations.
- Use the .
Explain the dissenting opinions of Justices Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy, including your understanding of their arguments and whether the arguments are valid.
Support your writing with at least three credible, relevant, and appropriate academic sources.
Write in an articulate and well-organized manner that is grammatically correct and free of spelling, typographical, formatting, and/or punctuation errors.

KEY TAKEAWAYS BEFORE ATTEMPTING THIS ASSIGNMENT

The Supreme Court’s recent decisions have produced a number of dissenting opinions, primarily from Justices Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy. In this essay, I will analyze Justice Gorsuch’s dissenting opinion on the Supreme Court’s recent decisions, explore Justice Alito’s arguments and the validity of his dissenting opinions, and understand the arguments of Justice Thomas and Kennedy and their dissenting views on the Supreme Court’s decisions. All of these justices have their own unique perspectives and perspectives on the law, and their

In the recent decisions of the Supreme Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch has offered a dissenting opinion that has been highly analyzed by the legal community. In a 2021 article published in the Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, A Valenti examines Gorsuch’s dissent in the context of the court’s decision. According to Valenti, Gorsuch’s dissent was based on the idea that Supreme Court justices should be allowed to interpret the laws as they best see fit, as opposed to relying on the decisions of the lower courts. Furthermore, Valenti states that Gorsuch was highly critical of the court’s decision to deny the plaintiffs the chance to appeal their case to the Supreme Court. Valenti argues that by denying the plaintiffs this opportunity, the Supreme Court has disregarded the rule of law and the importance of judicial review. Valenti concludes that Gorsuch’s dissent was a strong statement that highlights the need for further examination of the court’s decisions and their implications for the rule of law. (Valenti, 2021). By analyzing Gorsuch’s dissent, Valenti has provided important insights into the implications of the court’s decisions and their impact on the rule of law.

In his 2020 writing on William & Mary Law Review Online, JW Aimonetti dives into the dissenting opinions of Justice Alito and the validity of such opinions. He begins by noting that Justice Alito is often the “lone dissenter in the Supreme Court’s most important cases” (Aimonetti 2020). He then goes on to explain that Justice Alito’s dissents have often been dismissed by other justices as “unpersuasive” (Aimonetti 2020). Aimonetti argues that such dismissals are unfair and that Justice Alito’s dissents should be taken seriously and given due consideration. He cites examples such as Justice Alito’s dissent in the 2018 case of Janus v. AFSCME, which was later proven to be correct when the Supreme Court reversed its decision and sided with Justice Alito. Aimonetti concludes that Justice Alito’s dissents are often “thoughtful and well-reasoned” (Aimonetti 2020) and should be given the same respect and consideration as the majority opinion. He suggests that in order to make sure that Justice Alito’s dissents are taken seriously, they should be carefully examined and discussed, even if they are not in agreement with the majority opinion. Aimonetti’s writing provides an important insight into the validity and importance of Justice Alito’s dissents and is a thought-provoking piece of scholarship.

Thomas and Kennedy are two of the Supreme Court’s most influential justices, and their dissenting views on the court’s decisions have been well documented. In his book English for Specific Purposes, H Vass (2017) highlights their divergent arguments in a comprehensive analysis. Thomas is known for his conservative views, often dissenting from the majority opinion. He has argued that the court should limit its rulings to the facts presented before it, and should not attempt to establish new legal precedents. Kennedy, on the other hand, is more likely to take a broad view of the law and to look for more abstract principles and values in the court’s decisions. He has argued that the court should take a more nuanced approach to interpreting the law and should consider the context in which it is applied. Both Thomas and Kennedy are important figures in the Supreme Court and their dissenting views have shaped the court’s decisions in numerous ways. It is clear that both justices have had a significant impact on the court’s rulings, and their dissenting opinions should not be overlooked.

Though Justices Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy all brought different views to the discussion, they all agree that the result of the case disregarded Supreme Court precedent and favored an expansive administrative state at the expense of a limited one. In essence, these justices had a nuanced understanding of the case that called into question the need for executive deference and claimed that the government should have been more transparent in its decision-making procedures. Ultimately, their dissenting opinions prove to be valid arguments that call attention to the fact that, far too often, it is difficult to make sense of administrative bureaucracy and that the Supreme Court should be a reliable check to these bureaucratic powers.

Work Cited

H Vass.”Lexical verb hedging in legal discourse: The case of law journal articles and Supreme Court majority and dissenting opinions.”https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889490617301989

A Valenti.”LGBT Employment Rights in an Evolving Legal Landscape: the Impact of the Supreme Court’s Decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia.”https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10672-020-09359-7

“Second Guessing Double Jeopardy: The Stare Decisis Factors as Proxy Tools for Original Correctness.”https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/willmaon61&section=3

WOULD YOU LIKE A CUSTOM ESSAY JUST FOR YOU?

Get Assignment Help- Confidentially!




Why Choose Ace Writing Center?

***Absolutely NO Plagiarism.

***All writing is original.

***Guaranteed Top Grade.

***24/7 Support

***100% Money Back Guarantee

***Free revision

Explain the dissenting opinions of Justices Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy, including your understanding of their arguments and whether the arguments are valid.

Preparation

Instructions

KEY TAKEAWAYS BEFORE ATTEMPTING THIS ASSIGNMENT

Get 20% Discount on This Paper

Essay Writing Services