Charles e Whittaker

Charles e Whittaker

The duration that Charles Whittaker served in the judiciary has received harsh judgment with many historians considering it as a failure. They have considered the contribution, or lack of it, in several cases that Whittaker was involved in to be lacking. In Baker v. Carr Whittaker did not participate in this important decision and the subsequent rights that followed further masked his contribution in the court (Smith 176). The case before the court was about legislative reapportionment. Charles e Whittaker.

Pay to Unlock the Answer!

The case was about civil rights. The appellant had argued that the warrantless entry would have violated his civil rights as contained in the Fourth Amendment. Charles e Whittaker.

On a majority vote, 5-4, the court ruled that a search by health workers do not violate the Fourth amendment. The court argued that whenever a health worker shall have cause to suspect that a nuisance exist in any house, he may demand entry during the day time. Refusal of entry shall attract a fine of twenty dollars. The ruling in Camara v. Municipal Court eight years later overturned this decision. Whittaker again failed to portray his decisiveness in the common matters that affect the common citizens. No wonder most people consider him as one of the worst judges appointed to the Supreme Court in the twentieth century. Charles e Whittaker.

Work cited

BAKER v. CARR, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). 369 U.S. 186

 Camara v. Municipal Court 387 U.S. 523 (1967)

Frank v. Maryland, 359 U.S. 360 (1959)

Garrow, David. Mental decrepitude on the U.S. Supreme Court: The historical case for a 28th Amendment. The University of Chicago Law review, vol.67, No.4 (autumn, 2000), pp 995-1087.

NLRB v. Truck Drivers Local 449 (“Buffalo Linen Supply Co.”), 353 U.S. 87 (1957)

Smith, Craig. Failing justice: Charles Evans Whittaker on the Supreme Court. New York: McFarland.2005. Print.