A significant figure, Chief Justice Earl Warren, transformed and changed the justice system during a politically deafening time American. Chief Justice Earl Warren had accomplished much before he was appointed Chief Justice. He was first elected Attorney General of California, where he carefully investigated and shut down businesses that received immediate attention such as gambling, prostitution, bootlegging, and speakeasies. Once he became a public figure and gained support, Earl Warren ran for governor. During Warren's first governorship, he was known for frugal spending, tax cuts and revenue targeting. He cared for the elderly, the mentally ill and the wounded during the war. Earl Warren served as governor of California for three consecutive terms. Chief Justice Earl Warren was later appointed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1953 after Warren lost the election to Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. Warren became the right-wing Republican but soon became more liberal on the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Warren had conducted numerous significant cases. The three most notable cases are those of Brown V. Board of Education in 1954, Gideon V. Wainwright in 1963, and Miranda V. Arizona in 1966. These three cases have had a great impact on the criminal justice community and the general public as well Today. to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The first case, Brown V. Board of Education, declared separate schools for black and white students, which was clearly unconstitutional. This decision overturned Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 which stated that there would be separate rail cars for blacks and whites. On May 17, 1954, the Warren courts reached a unanimous decision declaring that educational facilities are inherently unequal. For this reason, racial segregation was considered a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. While everyone else, however, only one judge rejected segregation. There were many questions among the justices about whether the Constitution gave the courtroom the power to order its end, especially since the court, in several cases decided after Plessy, had upheld the separate but equal doctrine as constitutional. . Warren informed his colleagues after oral argument that he believed racial segregation violated the Constitution and that only one considered blacks inferior to whites if the exercise was upheld. He didn't push for a vote but, instead, talked to the judges and got them to talk to each other since he had common ground that everyone could agree on. In the end Warren had eight votes. Warren helped accelerate the process of desegregation of public schools, which was often under the presidency of Richard M. Nixon. During his years as chief, Warren managed to keep all decisions regarding segregation unanimous. Gideon v. Wainwright was a landmark case in the history of the United States Supreme Court. In the case, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the nation's courts are required under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution to provide gratuity in criminal cases to defendants who are unable to pay their personal lawyers. This has had a great effect on law enforcement today because the presence of a lawyer makes an officer's job more difficult. It is quite important to note that there was a Supreme Court ruling on this incident in the casePowell v. Alabama. Since then, the Supreme Court decision has mandated that counsel must be provided in every capital case. Gideon V. Wainwright extended this right to all people in all cases. It can be quite difficult to determine whether or not this policy has had a positive or negative effect on the criminal justice system. It was a great step forward from the social order and a step forward towards civil liberties. Early on, Earl Warren was once privately outraged by what he saw as police abuses ranging from warrantless searches to forced confessions. Chief Justice Warren's third major government-related case was Miranda v. Arizona. This was a very common indicator in the US Supreme Court, so most people have heard of it. The courtroom held incriminating and exculpatory statements in response to the interrogation carried out using an accused in custody and which, in fact, will be admissible at trial. Only if the prosecution can demonstrate that the accused was informed once of the right to consult a lawyer beforehand and of the right not to incriminate himself before questioning by the police, and also make it known that the accused not only knows these rights but willingly gave them up. Miranda v. Arizona has become very popular and has influenced the functioning of law enforcement in the United States. Law enforcement now makes sure the Miranda Warning is part of the protocol and makes sure it is announced to suspects so they know their rights. The definition of the Miranda Warning (1966) refers to the "constitutional requirement that once an individual is detained by the police, there be certain warnings which a police officer is required to give to the detainee." The purpose of the Miranda Warning is to to ensure that the suspect knows his rights under the Constitution of the United States and can recall them at any time during an interrogation or interview. As is already known, the Miranda Warning must be given before any interrogation, but, if a suspect says something before hearing the warning, that information can be used in court. As mentioned before, this argument was a big step towards civil liberties and away from social order. Chief Justice Earl Warren was very eager to make sure law enforcement was fair and held accountable for their actions Next to talk about is Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Before becoming Cheif Justice, Rehnquist was appointed deputy attorney general of the Department of Justice under President Richard Nixon. He spent two years at Nixon's side trying to impress him by tackling important issues. Nixon later appointed him an associate justice of the Supreme Court. In 1986, William Rehnquist became chief justice soon after the retirement of Chief Justice Warren Burger. As Chief Justice, Rehnquist sought to set the past right by worrying about some abortion rights and affirmative action. Because Rehnquist is considered a conservative, he preferred a “formation” of federalism that gave priority to the reservation of powers to the states provided by the Tenth Amendment. Rehnquist was a firm believer in states' rights and demonstrated limited federal control, particularly over the Fourteenth Amendment. One important thing to know is that Rehnquist did not approve of the decision made in Brown v. Board of Education. In fact, he endorsed and supported the opinions in South Dakota v. Dole, meaning he supported reducing congressional funding to states that did not meet the national drinking age of 21. There are cases.