3.Judiciary Flashcards

Question

Supreme court shaping areas of policy - healthcare

Answer 1

In National Federation of Independent Business v Sebellius 2012 the Supreme Court struck down the section of the 2010 Affordable Care Act which forced states to participate in an expansion of the federal-state Medicaid programme or lose all federal funding for Medicaid (limiting congrssional power) Counter - The Supreme Court does not have to grant a hearing of a case e.g. In Planned Parenthood of Arkansas v Jegley 2018, which would have resulted in all but 1 abortion clinic closing down, this came into force as the Supreme Court chose not to hear the case

Answer 2

In Michigan v Environmental Protection Agency 2018 the supreme court made the EPA consider whether the costs are justified rather than just regulating the Clear Air Act undermining Obama's environmental policy

Answer 3

In National Federation of Independent Business v Sebellius 2012 the Supreme Court struck down the section of the 2010 Affordable Care Act which forced states to participate in an expansion of the federal-state Medicaid programme or lose all federal funding for Medicaid (limiting congressional power) United States v Arizona 2012 The court struck down 3 provisions of an Arizona immigration law as they encroached on areas of congressional authority to regulate immigration The Sup C can both protect and limit Congress keeping the balance of powers of the fed gov and those of the individual states (protecting Congressional power)

Answer 4

National Labor Relations Board v Noel Canning 2014 - ruled in a 9-0 vote that Obama lacked the constitutional authority to make high-level executive branch appointments (recess appointments) when the Senate was technically available to give its advice and consent (limiting presidential power) In Trump v. Hawaii 2018, The Court upheld President Donald Trump's executive order banning travel from several predominantly Muslim countries, ruling that it fell within his authority to protect national security. (protecting presidential power)

Answer 5

Rasul v Bush 2004- struck down the Bush administration's view that the detainees in Guantanamo Bay were outside the jurisdiction of fed courts. Instead, the foreign detainees held at the US base in Guantanamo Bay did have access to the US fed courts to challenge their detention. While agreeing that it was within Bush's powers to order the detention of members of al Qaeda/ Taliban as 'enemy combatants'. Hamdan v Rumsfeld 2004- declared the military commissions set up by Bush to try people at Guantanamo Bay was unconstitutional. Led to the passing of the Military Commissions Act 2006 as a reaction by the president and Congress to authorise the use of military commissions in Guantanamo Bay, thus overcoming the ruling which became the focus of the 2008 case Boumediene v Bush 2008- ruled that the procedures set up by the Bush administration and Congress, following the Hamdan v Rumsfeld decision, were inadequate to ensure that the detainees received their day in court. This in turn struck down the congressional act and asserted the Court's right ti rule over presidential actions in this policy area

Answer 6

The Constitution will quickly become out of date if it is not interpreted in the light of modem developments E.g. LGBTQ rights in Obergefell v Hodges (2015) where the Supreme Court effectively legalised gay marriage across all US states, including 13 states in which it had been illegal before this ruling. Elected and accountable branches often favour the will of the majority and therefore interpretation of the Constitution can ensure minority rights are also protected. E.g. In the case of Snyder v Phelps (2011) the right to free speech of the controversial Westboro Baptist Church in protesting at soldiers funerals was upheld by the Supreme Court The Founding Fathers could not have envisaged the world which exists today and some of the words in the Constitution are meaningless without interpretation. E.g. the Founding Fathers were not writing about semi-automatic rifles in the 2nd Amendment.

Answer 7

Interpreting the Constitution makes the Supreme Court an inherently political institution, undermining its neutrality e.g. the changing judicial policy on abortion rights from Roe v Wade 1973 to Dobbs v Jackson Womens Health Organization 2022 Changes required can be left to the elected and therefore accountable branches rather than risking the misinterpretation of the original principles of the Constitution. e.g. In Planned Parenthood of Arkansas v Jegley 2018, which would have resulted in all but 1 abortion clinic closing down, this came into force as the Supreme Court chose not to hear the case The principles of the Constitution are not relevant. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, using words and text to demonstrate meaning, and it is the meaning in the context of when it was written which should be adhered to. e.g. DC v Heller 2008 the Court ruled against the control laws and the majority of the Court took the view that 'the right to keep and bear arms' in the 2nd Amendment is a right of the individual

Answer 8

Liberal activism - Obergefell v Hodges (2015) the Supreme Court effectively legalised gay marriage across all US states, including 13 states in which it had been illegal before this ruling. It also overruled the congressional law Defense of Marriage Act 1996. Therefore, the court overruled the state and the federal government Conservative activism - Citizens United v FEC (2010) the Supreme Court overturned part of a congressional law, the McCain-Feingold reforms. In allowing money to be seen as a form of free-speech, this fits in with more conservative ideals that embrace meritocracy and a reduction in government interference in individual's lives. Having earned the money, the individual should be free to spend it as they see fit. Also, activism as it directly contradicted a Supreme Court case from 7 years earlier

Answer 9

Liberal restraint - Whole Woman's Health v Hellerstedt (2016) demonstrated a continuing defence of the 1973 decision of Roe v Wade, which initially established a woman's right to abortion. Cases on abortion have been heard since then, and while some have placed limitations, the unwillingness of the Court to overturn this remained until 2022. Conservative restraint - Glossip v Gross (2015) upheld the use of the lethal injections to kill prisoners convicted of capital crimes as it did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment. The case suggested that prisoners could only challenge the method of execution by providing an alternative method of execution. The Court argued it was the responsibility of the prisoner to demonstrate that the execution method caused severe pain, not the responsibility of the state

Answer 10

The Supreme Court is unelected so is unaccountable for the decisions that it makes The Court can overrule its own decisions, even when the Constitution has not changed, suggesting that the Court is acting politically rather than neutrally Judicial review interprets the Constitution, meaning there are few effective checks on the Court's power as constitutional amendments are so difficult to pass

Answer 11

Given the frequent election cycle, elected branches often shy away from dealing with controversial policy issues or focus only on the will of the majority. The Supreme Court is therefore the only branch that can deal with controversial issues or minority rights without fear of public reprisals If the Supreme Court defers to elected branches of government, this might allow laws and policies which directly contravene the Constitution to stand The power of judicial review, while not explicit in the Constitution, could be implied. The Court should therefore act to limit the government as the Founding Fathers intended

Answer 12

While justices can in be impeached, this process has never been used to remove a justice and only ever been once, in 1805. This further advances the unaccountable nature of the Court. The Court's power of judicial review often amounts to the final say on any issue as it is so difficult to overturn a decision. The use of constitutional amendments to achieve this has only occurred once, in 1913. Despite only being able to hear a limited number of cases each year, the fact that 8,000 cases are annually brought to the Court allows it a vast choice on what it wishes to rule upon

Answer 13

The Court has often shy away from hearing cases in which public opinion is closely divided, such as gun control cases. The Constitution provides the single biggest limit on the Supreme Court. Regardless of the justices' personal or political opinions, cases and decisions must be rooted in the Constitution. Even with the power to interpret this, they can only interpret what is there. Justices are subject to the threat of removal as they only hold their offices during times of 'good behaviour'. This should prevent justices from acting in a reckless manner

Answer 14

The Supreme Court can only take cases with a constitutional basis and make decisions on the wording of the Constitution. The justices' personal political opinions are therefore irrelevant to the decision-making process. Members of the Court have legal rather than political expertise. Almost all of them have come from circuit courts and even Elena Kagan's political experience was within the Justice Department. Usually upwards of two-thirds of cases are decided by more than five justices. As the Court is broadly divided into 'liberals' and 'conservatives', this suggests the justices must be basing their decisions on something other than their personal opinion. There have been numerous cases where, even in controversial and landmark decisions, a justice has seemingly voted against their known personal ideology in a case decision.

Answer 15

The impact of many rulings is inherently political, striking down actions or acts of the elected branches of government or even, in the rare case of Bush v Gore (2000), effectively deciding who will be the next president. The appointment process is inherently political and seems to be getting more so. Since 2006, appointment votes have been more obviously divided on party lines, and the nominations of Garland and Kavanaugh were particularly contentious. Justices can be identified, and subsequently labelled, as 'liberal' or 'conservative', depending on which side of major decisions they align with. That it is possible to do this suggests the actions of justices are politically rather than judicially motivated, given that they are all interpreting the same evidence and the same Constitution yet reaching different conclusions.