Component 3, Part 1- The Supreme Court Flashcards
What is the central role of the US Supreme Court?
1) The central role of the Supreme court is to uphold the constitution.
2) As a constitutional court, it is not trying to ascertain innocence or guilt. Instead it determines the acceptability of actions within the rules of the constitution.
How is the Supreme Court established by the Constitution?
1) Supreme Court
2) Judicial power
3) Original jurisdiction
4) Appellate jurisdiction
5) Appointment process
1) Establishes a Supreme Court (Article III, section 1)
2) Extent of judicial power. The supreme court cannot initiate cases but must wait for a constitutional dispute to arise.
3) Original jurisdiction, where a cases is tried at the Supreme court, and does not have to be heard first in a lower court, in cases such as those involving constitutional disputes between states and between federal government and the states.
4) Appellate jurisdiction, most cases must go to another court before being presented to the Supreme Court on appeal. The losing side in a lower court can appeal to the next court level until finally reaching the Supreme Court.
5) The appointment process, all justices are nominated by the president and ratified by the Senate.
1) What does the power of judicial review do?
2) Provide some examples.
3) Is Judicial review in the constitution or is it implied?
1) Allows the SC to overturn any other institution because the court declares its actions to be unconstitutional.
2) The Court gave itself this power in Marbury v Madison in 1803 when it first overturned an Act of Congress.
3) Some argue that is is apparent in the constitution, as the Supreme court is charged with upholding matters arising under the constitution. Others argue that the power of judicial review is not a legitimate power, as it is not awarded to the Supreme Court by the constitution.
What does Congress has the power to do regarding courts in the USA?
1) establish “inferior courts” - there are 13 circuit courts below the Supreme Court.
2) determine the number of justices on the court, which has long been set at nine.
How does the US constitution establish an independent SC?
1) Separation of powers:
- Nobody in the executive or legislature works closely with the judges, so there is little chance of close connections/pressure.
2) Appointment process:
- The President cannot determine the appointment of justices alone, but instead nominates, where the Senate then accepts of rejects.
3) Life Tenure:
- Justices are appointed for life, preventing the threat of removal. President or Congress cannot remove a justice, giving justices the freedom to act regardless of the wishes of the president of the day.
4) Salary:
- The judicial compensation clause of article III protects the pay of judges, stating that their pay “shall not be diminished during their continuance in office”.
How does a Supreme Court case work?
1) There is a plaintiff and a defendant. Lawyers make arguments on either side. All 9 justices hear a case and can ask questions.
How does the Supreme Court come to a decision after a court hearing?
1) Once a case is heard, the Court discusses the case in private in order to reach a majority opinion of 5 or more.
2) A justice in the majority is tasked with writing the opinion, with input from other justices.
3) The opinion of the court is a written document detailing how the Constitution has or has not been broken.
What power does the Supreme Court have in hearing a case?
1) The SC has the power to declare that the actions or laws of other institutions are unconstitutional.
2) This allows the Court to overturn those actions or laws using the power of judicial review.
What power does the Supreme Court have in hearing a case?
1) The SC has the power to declare that the actions or laws of other institutions are unconstitutional.
2) This allows the Court to overturn those actions or laws using the power of judicial review.
Explain the process by which a justice of the Supreme Court is appointed.
1) A vacancy occurs:
- vacancies are caused by the death, resignation or impeachment of a justice. Justices are protected from threat of removal by life tenure.
2) The president nominates a new justice:
- Presidents, with the aid of White House officials, will typically draw up a shortlist of nominees.
- The nominee’s public records and private lives are scrutinised, including FBI reports, before a president settles on a single nominee.
3) The senate decides:
- The Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearings, including an interview with the nominee, and makes a recommendation to the full chamber.
- The American Bar Association issues a report on the extent to which the justice is qualified, which may or may not influence the final decision.
- The full senate votes with over 50% required for the nominee to be appointed.
Provide 2 examples of prospective justices who were not successful.
1) Harriet Miers (2005):
- She was nominated by George W Bush. Her moderate conservative nature and lack of judicial experience were both used as criticisms of her nomination.
- With a Republican Senate majority, Bush could have proposed a more conservative justice.
- Democrats chose to attack Miers, focusing on her lack of experience and connections to the president.
2) Merrick Garland (2016):
- Nominated by Obama to replace conservative Justice Scalia.
- The Senate blocked any nomination by refusing to hold a vote. This was extreme partisanship since the senate did not fulfil its constitutional duty to advise and consent.
- This is of major importance because it allowed President Trump to fill the vacancy instead, with Justice Gorsuch (who voted to overturn Roe v Wade in 2022).
What are the strengths of the justice appointment system?
1) It ensures independence:
- The life appointment and the use of separation of powers and checks and balances, after careful scrutiny, prevent a justice feeling under obligation to any one political institution or public opinion.
2) It ensures judicial ability:
- since nominations are carefully scrutinised by the Senate Judiciary Committee and rely on a full Senate vote, they are vetted for their ability to operate as a justice on the highest court in the United States.
- Justices without significant legal experience are unlikely to be successful.
3) It ensures personal suitability:
- The intensive nomination ensures that there are no historical concerns or character flaws. Eg: Reagan experienced failure with the nomination of Douglas Ginsburg who was withdrawn after evidence emerged of previous weed use
What are the 3 weaknesses of the nomination process?
1) The nomination process is politicised:
- The president’s own policy preferences infect the Court. This makes the Supreme Court a highly political body.
- Constant criticisms that a justice has not based a decision on the Constitution. This threatens the Court’s authority - and the constitution itself- with the risk that rulings are not respected.
2) The ratification process is politicised:
- Increasingly the Senate appears to be acting in a partisan manner, supporting or opposing the nomination according to which president made it.
.- Since the rejection of Robert Bork in 1987, hearings have become more politically charged, affecting the neutrality of the court as justices become entangled in a political dispute between Democrats and Republicans.
3) It is ineffective:
-Nominees tend to avoid giving much detail of their views of the Constitution and recent constitutional issues due to politicisation.
- The process fails to provide adequate scrutiny of the nominee.
- Nominees avoid being very open about their views.
How does judicial ability influence the President’s choice of nominee?
1) Those with a lack of judicial experience have arguably faced tougher confirmation hearings.
How does ideology influence the President’s choice of nominee?
1) Presidents are highly unlikely to nominate someone of an opposing political view. Eg: A Republican president is likely to choose a conservative justice.
2) Obama said that judicial experience alone was insufficient.
How can social characteristics influence the president’s choice of nominee?
1) There is increasing racial and gender diversity on the Court.
2) It could be that President’s are making a value judgement about the desirability of diversity of positions in power.
How can political motivations influence the president’s choice of nominee?
1) President’s may be concerned more with personal political gain than with fulfilling ideological goals.
2) A nominating president has to consider the likely response of the seante.
3) A president facing a hostile majority in the Senate might make a more moderate choice to limit opposition. Conversely, a president may choose a justice to maintain support from key voting groups. Eg: After choosing Sotomayor, Obama was able to use this to increase his support amongst hispanic voters between 2008 & 2012.
1) What was the Warren Court known for?
2) When was it around?
1) Known for hearing a series of civil rights cases delivering liberal opinions. Cases such as Brown vs Topeka (1954) and Miranda v Arizona (1966).
2) 1953-69
1) What was the Rehnquist Court known for?
2) When was it around?
1) Seen as a more restrained court rather than active court. Heard fewer cases, reducing its political impact.
2) 1986-2005
1) What was the Roberts court known for?
2) When was it around?
1) More conservative than the Rehnquist court. Has delivered a series of conservative rulings undermining campaign finance regulations such as Citizens United 2010. Also overturned Roe v Wade.
2) 2005-present day
How has the outcome of the Roberts Court been conservative in its impact?
1) DC v Heller 2008, the court departed from judicial precedent, stating for the first time in history that the 2nd amendment gave individuals the right to bear arms. This overturned one of the most restrictive gun laws in the US, in which hand guns were banned from homes.
2) Citizens Untied v FEC 2010 and McCutcheon v FEC 2014. These cases overturned congressional restrictions on the use of money in US elections, making it easier for the wealthy to donate unlimited dollars.
3) Shelby v Holder 2013. This ruling meant that states cannot be checked by the federal government to ensure their voting practices are not discriminatory.
How have conservatives been disappointed at some cases in the Roberts court?
1) NFIB v Sebelius, the Court was given an opportunity to review Obama’s Affordable Care Act with only 4 conservative justices arguing that it restricts state power, breaking the interstate commerce clause.
2) In Obergefell v Hodges 2015, the Court issued a landmark liberal ruling by stating that gay rights were protected in the 14th amendement.
