An important figure, Chief Justice Earl Warren, transformed and changed the justice system during a deafening period for politics American. Chief Justice Earl Warren had accomplished much before being appointed Chief Justice. He was first elected Attorney General of California, where he carefully investigated and shut down activities that gained immediate attention, such as gambling, prostitution, bootlegging, and speakeasies. Once he became a public figure and gained support, Earl Warren ran for governor. Early in his governorship, Warren was known for his frugal spending, tax cuts, and stewardship of revenue streams. He cared for the elderly, the mentally ill and those injured 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 to Eisenhower and Richard Nixon in the election. Warren became a right-wing Republican but quickly became more liberal on the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Warren had led many important cases. The three most important cases are Brown V. Board of Education in 1954, Gideon V. Wainwright in 1963, and Miranda V. Arizona in 1966. These three cases greatly affected the criminal justice community and the general public, even Today. to plagiarism. Get a Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayThe first case, Brown V. Board of Education, declared separate schools for black and white students, which was clearly unconstitutional. This decision overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, in which it was stated that there would be separate railcars for blacks and whites. On May 17, 1954, the Warren courts issued a unanimous decision declaring that educational institutions were inherently unequal. For this reason, racial segregation is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, all the judges rejected segregation. There were many questions among the justices as to whether the Constitution gave the court the authority to order its termination, particularly because the court, in various cases decided after the Plessy decision, had upheld the doctrine of separation but equal as constitutional. . Warren informed his colleagues after the oral argument that he believed racial segregation violated the Constitution and that only one viewed blacks as inferior to whites if the exercise continued. He did not insist on a vote, but instead spoke to the judges and convinced them to talk among themselves to find common ground that everyone could agree on. Warren ultimately received eight votes. Warren helped accelerate the campaign to desegregate public schools, which often fell under President Richard M. Nixon. Throughout his years as leader, Warren managed to maintain unanimity in all decisions regarding segregation. Gideon v. Wainwright was a landmark case in United States Supreme Court history. In that case, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that domestic courts are required under the Constitution's Sixth Amendment to provide counsel in criminal cases to defendants who fail to pay their personal attorneys. This has had a significant effect on law enforcement today, as the presence of an attorney makes an officer's job more difficult. He is veryImportantly, there was a Supreme Court decision regarding this incident in Powell v. Alabama. Since then, the Supreme Court ruling has mandated that counsel be present in every capital case. Gideon V. Wainwright extended this right to everyone in all cases. It can be quite difficult to determine whether this policy has had a positive or negative effect on the criminal justice system. It was a great step forward in social order and a step forward toward 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 important government case was Miranda v. Arizona. This is a very common indicator in the United States Supreme Court, which is why the majority of people have heard of it. The court made inculpatory and exculpatory statements following interrogation by a defendant in custody which will, in fact, be admissible at trial. Only if the prosecution can show that the accused was informed of his right to consult a lawyer first and his right against self-incrimination before his questioning by the police, and also make it known that the accused not only knows these rights, but has voluntarily waived them. Miranda v. Arizona has become very popular and its impact on the operation of law enforcement in the United States. Law enforcement now ensures that the Miranda warning is part of protocol and that it is announced to suspects so that they know their rights. The definition of Miranda warning (1966) refers to "the constitutional requirement that once a person is arrested by the police, there are certain warnings that a police officer is required to give to a detained person ". The purpose of the Miranda warning is to ensure that the suspect knows his or her rights under the U.S. Constitution and can be reminded of 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, this information can be used in court. As we said previously, this subject constituted a great step forward towards civil liberties and social order. Chief Justice Earl Warren was very concerned about fairness and accountability for law enforcement. Next to speak is Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Before becoming chief justice, Rehnquist served as deputy attorney general of the Justice Department under President Richard Nixon. He spent two years at Nixon's side trying to impress him by tackling the big issues. Subsequently, Nixon appointed him an associate justice of the Supreme Court. In 1986, William Rehnquist became Chief Justice immediately following the retirement of Chief Justice Warren Burger. As chief justice, Rehnquist attempted to restore the past by addressing some abortion rights and affirmative action. Since Rehnquist is considered a conservative, he favored a "formation" of federalism that would prioritize the reservation of powers to the states through the Tenth Amendment. Rehnquist strongly believed in states' rights and showed limits on federal control, particularly regarding the Fourteenth Amendment. One important thing to know is that Rehnquist did not agree with 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 Congress's reduction of funds for states that did not meet the national age of 21 for.