The judiciary system in the United States is one of the most complex judicial systems in the world. It is one of the most accomplished systems because it functions effectively in a country that has one of the highest cultural diversities. The judicial system in the United States has undergone so many changes over a long period to attain its status. There is however, some areas of weaknesses in the judicial system that was hidden for a very long time until the year 2008. During this period when president Obama came to power so many changes started being effected in the judicial system.
After the year 2008, biased processes of the judicial systems and its policy-making on uncivil rights and liberties were revealed. Although the United States has one of the best policies on the rights and liberties of its citizens, some of the areas were not granted equal treatment in the judicial system. There were some elements of racial discrimination, gender disparities, discrimination based on religion, and other cases like gay and lesbians not being treated equally under the law among many others.
The current administration in the United States has been pushing for complete eradication of racial biasness in the court systems. The current presidency believes that all Americans deserve equal treatment under the law. There have been discriminations on the rights of African Americans cases especially those involving a black American and a white American. Americans of Arabic origin have also suffered under the law especially when it comes to their rights in circumstances involving terrorism. They have in some cases denied bail, presumed guilty, or treated unequally in case involving an Arab and a white because of their race (Rudalevige, par 1).
Discrimination based on religion was very much present in the United States. Especially the case of a Muslims in cases involving terrorism. They are in most cases denied their rights and freedoms as per the constitution just because they are Muslims. If an American who is a Christian is suspected of a criminal offence and another one is a Muslim, not all of them will get an equal sentence in the court. The Muslim American is likely to have a steeper penalty under the same law. This indicated a high level of biasness based on religion in a country that does not have a state religion and believes in freedom of worship (Rudalevige, par 1).
Sexist biasness has been a problem in the United States for a long time. Lesbian couples or gay couples are not granted equal rights under the same law as straight couples. A gay couple has been having difficulties in obtaining marriage certificates. This meant that the law did not recognize their marriages. The gays have been having so many problems on matters involving next of kin in property, divorce cases, and any other rights guaranteed to couples under the United States law (Howe, par 2). Recently laws have been enacted to effectively ensure that gay marriages are recognized as legitimate. The current president’s stand is that whether an individual is gay or not he/ she is an American citizen and must be treated equally under the law.
The court is entrusted with a very important role of protecting and interpreting the constitution. Some laws have been passed in the past by the congress that contradicts the constitution. These laws were supposed to be overturned by the court system. They have been functioning until recent past where cases are in court contesting the constitutionality of such laws. A good example of such a law was the DOMA law of 1996 that illegalized gay marriages (Howe, par 2). This law obviously infringed the rights and freedoms of the American people denying them their constitutional rights as American citizens. This indicated that the courts before 2008 were majorly involved in implementation of the laws and not confirming to the public whether those laws were constitutional. Recently there are so many cases in the court about constitutionality of some laws and bills. A good example is the famous Obama care bill that was challenges in the court for its constitutionality although the case did not win it proved a point that the court system has changed and is now protecting the constitution of the United States.