Evaluation of Supreme Court Cases and Special Interest Groups, Research Paper Example

The selected Supreme Court case is known as Abigail Noel Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin et al. and features Abigail Fisher’s argument that her application to the University of Texas at Austin was rejected to allow room for minority students with lesser qualifications. The full transcript of the case can be viewed at http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-981_4h25.pdf. A 2013 decision by the court voted in favor of the University of Texas’ decision, but the court is currently deciding on the validity of Fisher’s appeal on the basis of the case that was reheard on December 9, 2015.

This case is an example of judicial activism because it demonstrates the court’s tendency to interpret the Constitution in a manner that is in favor of contemporary values. In this situation, the court is specifically being asked to determine whether Abigail Fisher’s argument truly exemplifies an act of discrimination. There are several components of the case that illustrate it as an example of judicial activism due to conversations regarding the constitutionality of the decision. At one point, Justice Breyer asks, “What kind of evidence, in your opinion, could they or anyone else with any roughly similar plan put in that would show, in your view, that this is constitutional?” This demonstrates that the power of the Supreme Court is not being restricted and they are being given full power to determine whether Fisher’s claim shows that the University of Texas at Austin is violating her constitutional right. Another example of judicial activism can be seen when General Verrilli argues, “What the ­­ what the Court said last time around is to satisfy the compelling­interest inquiry, the University has got to articulate a reasoned, principled explanation for its decision to consider the educational benefits of diversity in a matter that this Court has found to be constitutional and substantial”. This shows that the court is actively looking for evidence that discrimination has occurred and that this form of discrimination is in violation Fisher’s rights. Last, the Supreme Court showed that, “Ms. Fisher placed upon UT the burden of ­­ of proving, by evidence of record, that its use of race was, first, in pursuit of a compelling, constitutionally legitimate interest expressed with sufficient clarity and concreteness allow a reviewing court to determine, first, that the use of race was a necessary last resort in pursuing the interest defined, taking into account reasonably available nonracial alternatives”, demonstrating that the court will make a decision regarding the constitutionality of this previous decision and set a precedent for future decisions in the court of law.

The main agenda of New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) is to achieve the passage of environmental protection laws in New York State. The main agenda of the National Rifle Association (NRA) is to promote the legality of gun ownership in the country. NYPIRG has allowed the passage of many environmental regulations in the state, which has reduced the freedom of some of the businesses in New York State. The NRA has advocated for the ability of Americans to hold guns, and in the modern context, the relationship of the special interest group with the voters is an important one because both Republican and Democrat presidential candidates regularly discuss their approval or rejection of the beliefs supported by the NRA. NYPIRG is somewhat influential in the New York area, while the NRA has an extreme influence on politics at the state and federal level.

NYPIRG is an advantageous organization because there are very few voices supporting the environment. By making the public more aware of decisions that will impact the environment, it has been able to contribute to the development of policies that are environmentally friendly even though these decisions might have a negative impact on businesses. Furthermore, NYPIRG actively lobbies across the state to pass legislation. Last, the organization hires youth and other individuals that can have a valuable impact on the state’s environmental future. On the other hand, the NRA is disadvantageous because their strength means that they are able to bribe politicians to support their agenda. Furthermore, legalizing guns to the extent that they desire will compromise the safety of American citizens. Last, the NRA’s influence is continuing to grow compared to opposing special interest groups, which makes it challenging for these groups to have their say in this current political environment.

One finding that surprised me was the amount of funds the NRA is able to raise. Currently the funding for this program is over 6 million dollars. Therefore, it is not surprising that this organization is able to have so much political sway due to their ability to fund their programs so effectively. As such, the beliefs that they advocate for are spoken about more frequently in political discourse. Overall, it appears that money is power in terms of special interest groups, so it is beneficial for special interest groups that wish to advocate for change to find ways to raise funds more effectively.