What was the difference between the Warren and Burger Courts?

Question

If possible, name some cases

Answer 1

Any answer you receive here will be very short and shallow for the subject.

In general. . . . . .

The years [1953 – 1969] of the Earl Warren Court (much as the Fred M. Vinsen Court preceding it) could be characterized as exhibiting extraordinary consistency among its members in its condemnation of legalized segregation. Clearly the most historic case was Brown v. Board of Education [1954 r.h. 1955] outlawing segregation in the public schools (interestingly in more recent times parts of this decision have been reversed).

During the years [1969 1986] Warren E. Burger Court the court shifted to the right in its treatment of a variety civil liberty and civil rights cases with movement away from the liberal-oriented reformism of the Warren era. Much of this movement could be seen as impacting the 4th Amendment. For example, in Vale v. Louisiana [1970] the court ruled as illegal a warrantless search of a house in front of which the police had just made a narcotics arrest. However, this was mitigated to some degree in Chambers v. Maroney [1970] in which it was deemed legal to search an auto without warrant after the police had arrested the petitioner and towed the auto to the police station. However, in Whiteley v. Warden [1971] a majority of justices led by Burger rejected as unlawful a car search conducted under a warrant, when that warrant had be based merely upon an informer’s tip without supporting evidence.

However, as I pointed out, these points of views as well as the references are meaningless if you are attempting to do an in depth comparison of these two courts. Courts, any court, are complex and vary greatly depending on the cases before them. In the current court many believed that Justice Thomas would simply follow the lead of Justice Scalia, but time has demonstrated that Justice Thomas has ”out Scalia’d Scalia” in the context of Constitutional literal interpretation.

In part, the Court is meant to evolve in such a manner in that it reflects the slow evolution of the people’s interpretation of the law in the context of the historical Common Law. From my perspective the court is not meant to be "ground breaking." Rather, it is meant to reflect the literal interpretation of the Constitution and the evolution of acceptable law by the people in the sense of Common Law from the time of Magna Carta.

As an example of the exception to this approach was the ground breaking of the John Marshall Court which in part defined what the court was (actually the job of the Congress and amendment process) and broke ground with the decision in McColloch v. Maryland [1819] with the decision that the words "Necessary" and "proper" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18) had the same meaning. This changed the intent of the Founders and exceeded the literal interpretation of Constitution.

Answer 2

Burger Court

Answer 3

I would say the Warren Court was ground breaking, and the Burger court, considering its length, wasn't.

The Warren Court is who we have to thank for Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda, Griswold, no more prayer in public schools.

So the Warren court overturned lots of precedents.

The Burger Court did not overturn much. They relied on Griswold for Roe v. Wade.

Answer 4

http://www.historycentral.com/bio/people/burger.html