Chapter 13: Judicial Politics Flashcards
The federal judicial power extends to any case arising under the
Constitution and federal law and treaties, to cases in which federal official or foreign governments are involved
The Constitution gives the federal judges power through their
Independence
Federal judges serve
For life (barring the commission of any impeachable offenses)
Judges are appointed as
Not elected
Judicial power is the power to decide what
The Constitution and law of the Congress really mean
Judicial Review
Power of the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court, to declare wars of Congress, laws of states, and actions of the President unconstitutional or invalid
Judicial Review is not explicitly stated in
The Constitution but is referred to by it
The Supreme Court created
The power of judicial review in the case of Marbury v. Madison
The courts make policy in their
Interpretation of federal laws, treaties, and the Constitution
Since some laws are intentionally vague, Congress allows the courts to
Read meaning into the terms thereby making policy in doing so
Judicial self-restraint
Judges should not read their own philosophies into the Constitution and should avoid direct confrontations with Congress, the president, and the states whenever possible
Original Intent
The doctrine of original intent the values of the Founders as expressed in the text of the Constitution and attempts to apply these values to current conditions
Original Intent: The supporters of original intent argue that
The Supreme Court should not set aside laws made by elected representatives unless they conflict with the Founders’ original intent
Proponents argue the use of the Doctrine of Original Intent used by
Judicially self-restrained judges will lead to decisions that agree with the U.S Constitution
Proponents argue it will protect the Constitution from being changed due to
Popular but sometimes transitory sentiment in society
Opponents argue it
Use will lead to make it too difficult to change the Constitution to reflect the changes in contemporary society
Judges who set aside laws that do not accord with
Their personal views of today’s moral standard are substituting their morality for that of elected bodies
Judicial activism: The idea behind judicial activism is that
The Constitution is a living document whose strength lies in its flexibility, and judges should shape constitutional meaning to fit the needs of contemporary society
Proponents argue it allows the court to
More easily change the U.S Constitution to reflect the value norms of contemporary society without having to go through the problematic formal amendment process
Opponents argue it can lead to
Court decision that are in fact unconstitutional
Opponents argue it allows the U.S Constitution to be changed subject to
The popular but sometimes transitory whims of society
A judicial principle that the issue has already been decided in
Earlier cases and the earlier decision needs only to be applied in the specific case before the court
A sequence of judicial decisions based on
State decisions creates a legal precedent
Precedent
Principle that previous decisions should determine the outcome of current cases
Precedent creates
Stability in the law
Jurisdiction
The power of a court to hear a case in question
Original jurisdiction
A particular court’s power to serve as a place where a given case is initially argued and decided
Appellate jurisdiction
A particular court’s power to review a decision or action of a lower court
Appeal requests that
A higher court review a case decided by a lower court
Structure and Jurisdiction of Federal Courts
1) The Federal Court system has 3 level
2) The U.S Supreme Court
3) The U.S Court of Appeal (12)
4) The U.S District Court
The U.S Supreme Court: The final interpreter of all matters involving
The Constitution and federal laws and treaties, whether the case began in a federal court or in a state court
Has complete discretion:
It can be determine whether to accept an appeal and consider a case
It decides to take cases that present a
“Substantial federal question” or where the federal courts of appeal are deciding a similar issue differently
The Rule of Four
Four of the nine justices on the Supreme Court must agree to hear the case on appeal
U.S Supreme Court: When the U.S Supreme Court accepts an appeal from
A state supreme court, the case goes directly to the U.S Supreme Court, it does not start at the district court level
Appeals from State Courts:
These cases normally involve the application of the Constitution or a federal law
Appeal from State and Federal Courts
About 8,000 cases are appealed to the U.S Supreme Court each year, only about 125 are accepted and decided
Courts of Appeal
They do not hold trials or accept new evidence, but consider only the records of the trial courts and oral or written arguments submitted by attorneys
District Courts
The federal trial courts and these conduct civil and criminal trials
Presidents try to nominate judges who share their
Political philosophy
A Litmus test refers to
Recruitment based on nominee’s stance on a single issue
Modernly, presidents and senators deny using a
Litmus test and the single issue is abortion
Republican presidents have denied using a litmus test but have insisted that
Nominees generally support a philosophy of judicial self-restraint
All presidential nominations for the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court, are sent to the
Senate for confirmations
The Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing, votes on the nomination, and then report to the full
Senate, where a final confirmation vote is taken
In the past, most senators believed presidents deserved to
Appoint their own judges, the opposition party would get its chance when it won the presidency
Only if the Senate found the nominee participated in a
Scandal had religious or racial bias, or was incompetent, would it not confirm the nominee
Modernly, publicity and partisanship over the confirmation of Supreme Court nominees have
Increased markedly in recent years, asking the nominee their positions on a whole host of issues, even when answering these questions would require the nominee to violate judicial rules of conduct
The political views of the Supreme Court justices have
An important influence on Court decisions
Justices are influenced primarily by their
Ideology, but public opinion, the president’s position, and the arguments of interest groups all contribute to the outcome of the case
The Supreme Court lags behind
Public opinion
Presidential influence: The U.S Solicitor General presents
The government’s (the president’s) case when it is a party to a lawsuit
Interest group influence: Have become
A major presence in S.CT. cases, Planned Parenthood, the NAACP, and the ACLU sponsor many cases themselves
