What was the difference between the Warren and Burger Courts?

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.
Source(s):

Answer 2

Justice Warren's Court came down with the Brown v. Board of Education decision, in which the doctrine of "Separate but Equal" facilities, as stated in the Plessy v. Ferguson decision, was unconstitutional because the mere separation of facilities (schools, in this case) implied that some people (blacks) did not have equal standing as others (whites).

The Warren Court was known as a progressive court for this decision, as well as others concerning civil rights.

Nixon appointed Chief Justice Burger to succed Chief Justice Warren. Burger was known as a strict constructionalist, concerning the Constitution. However, his court continued the progressive work of that of the Warren Court, especially concerning civil rights, the death penalty and abortion (Roe v. Wade).

Very little difference; The Burger Court continued the good works of the Warren Court.

But then came Renquist and the sour conservatives...

Answer 3

The 'Warren court' refers to the US Supreme court when Warren was Chief Justice. The 'Burger court' refers the the US Supreme court when Burger was Chief Justice.