Chapter 12: The Judiciary Flashcards
- Which Article of the US Constitution outlines the Judicial Branch? What does this article tell us about the
organization of the Judiciary? Why was the Judiciary Act of 1789 needed, and what does the Act define?
Article three, but this didn’t include much other than stating that the SC will be the highest court of the land. This vagueness gave Congress a great deal of agency to determine the size and structure of the federal courts. And so Congress made the Judiciary Act of 1789 to get things done and get a court system going. This act organized the lower courts, set number of justices, and allows Congress the ability to create courts as needed.
- What differences exist between federal courts, the US Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court of the United States? Define two key points for each.
The federal courts are comprised of 94 courts throughout the country, Congress can create more if need be. These courts resolve disputes through trials. And of course, they contain specialty courts.
Federal Appeal Courts’ main purpose is to appeal courts cases from lower courts if a person lost their case, they then go back and review the case they don’t actually start a new one. These courts have no jury and are instead made of a 3 judge panel to review the constitutional process of the lower courts.
And these circuits aren’t uniform and often subcultures can result in a different ruling on very similar issues.
The supreme court is the strongest court in the land. Of which only 1 court exists, with 9 justices ruling of which one is the chief justice. And their rulings could be considered the final say on legislation but even that can be overruled.
- How does a civil law tradition differ from a common law tradition? Which tradition does the U.S. use? How
does this affect the outcome of judicial decisions in the United States?
In a civil law tradition the judge is only there to interpret the law, and deem someone guilty or not guilty based on that law. The judge does not involve their own personal thoughts. But in a common-law tradition, the judge can of course work on how customs have changed over time, allowing their thoughts and thinking to intertwine with the process, and can essentially change a law that is too strict or outdated. So people who technically broke a law could be considered not guilty if that law is too old or strict, allowing them to walk free. The US uses the common law tradition.
- Identify and define four informal requirements for a case to be brought to the Supreme Court. Why have these barriers been put in place?
Standing has to be proved, meaning you were harmed by the conflict directly. Mootness has to be disproven, meaning that you have to show that the ruling will have an effect since the dispute hasn’t been resolved out of court. Another requirement is Ripeness, a law that is causing the dispute took effect during the general time and is currently in effect. And finally, the court must have four of the nine justices agree to hear it. The barriers are put in place to ensure that an actual controversy is occurring.
- What is judicial review, and why is it a key safeguard of the democratic process? Is this power found in the US Constitution?
Judicial review allows the supreme court to strike down legislation made by Congress if it’s considered to go against the constitution. Its purpose is to be a mediator to interpret the constitution in a proper way. This means that judicial review can prevent laws or actions that could harm a group of people or otherwise harm the democratic process. But it brings democracy into question since a group of non-elected officials could bring down legislation put up by the majority. So this of course means it is used carefully to not impose radical prepositions. And no, the power isn’t in the constitutions, its an implied power given by the ruling of Marbury V Madison.
- What are the differences between a majority, concurring, and dissenting opinion? Which of these carry legal weight and which do not?
The majority opinion is a part of all cases that establishes the precedent by the 5 justices who are in agreement. Effectively setting a precedent and law that future justices will follow.
Those with a concurring opinion agree with the majority but for different reasons. They are there to support the majority and can result in a 7 to 2 vote, with three of the majority having concurring opinions.
Finally, there are the justices with a dissenting opinion, these opinions carry no legal weight simply being the voice of the losing side. This grants the minority side the ability to list its issues with the majority, and to vent to the population but not much else. This of course leaves the majority opinion being the one with the most legal weight as they are the ones who effectively set laws, concurring is similar but they are basically there to support the majority precedent.
- What is the difference between a strict constructionist perspective, an originalist perspective, and a modern perspective for justices?
Strict constructionist looks at the constitutions as its written and nothing else but the words, stopping anything that goes against the written text.
The original intent perspective is very similar to the above-mentioned one, but these individuals basically try to think what the framers would have thought.
Modern and Broad interpretations believe that the constitution is old, but a living framework. So we should interpret it in the context of the modern age since concepts exist that the constitutions can’t address fairly.
- What are the three characteristics that differentiate judicial activism and judicial restraint?
If one of the three is done, then it could be considered judicial activism or judicial restraint. Individual opinion or ideology shouldn’t be considered at all. If a ruling overturns a state law, federal law, or prior court case then it could be considered judicial activism. But if it upholds a state law, federal law, or prior court case then it is judicial restraint.
- Identify key aspects of the relationship between Congress, the Court, and the President in terms of both
the separation of powers and also checks and balances.
Congress and the Court have a strained relationship. Congress of course creates the laws and the SCOTUS reviews those laws. The SCOTUS can strike down legislation it deems unconstitutional, and Congress has the ability to change the size of the court and the constitution. The relationship between the President and the courts isn’t as strained since they are rather distant from each other. The court can of course strike down presidents policy but usually doesn’t, and the president is charge of nominating the justice pushing the courts toward one side.
- Define and describe two perceived benefits and two drawbacks to judicial elections at the state level
(assuming a non-partisan election); describe the possible benefits of the remedy discussed in the lecture that many states have adopted.
One perceived benefits are that people will have a say on who gets to be judged, which is important since their decision carries the same weight as policy creation. And another benefit is that it can be seen as more fair than an appointment since a court could listen to a policy that was signed into law by the same official who essentially gave them their job. One drawback is how certain can we be sure that voters will be capable of evaluating judges. And If we elect judges how can we be certain that they won’t return favors to people who contributed the most money to their campaign.
The benefit of the “remedy” ( Merit selections and retention system) is that you get the best of the two options. Since we allow the people to vote even if it is a bit partisan but elected officials still get to chose who to put up.
