Judiciary and the Supreme Court

Question 1

What federal courts exist in America?

Answer 1

Court of appeal
US district court
Federal courts
State courts

Question 2

How do cases work their way up to the Supreme Court?

Answer 2

Courts work in groups of states called districts.
Case is taken to state and then district court

Question 3

Why are the 13 federal Courts of Appeals so significant?

Answer 3

They are, for many cases, the final point in many SC case

Question 4

What is the power of judicial review? What does the Constitution say about it?

Answer 4

where the judiciary reviews the actions of the legislature and and executive branch ensuring that flows are compatible with the constitution

Judicial review is an inferred power of the SC and was esatblcihed by precendednt

Question 5

In which cases does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction?

Answer 5

The SC having the right to hear a case first when the case is between 2 states

Question 6

In which cases does the Supreme Court have appellate jurisdiction?

Answer 6

This is the power to review and override decisions of the lower courts

Question 7

What happened in the case Marbury v. Madison (1803)?

Answer 7

The SC established the power to hear appeals to judicial rulings

Question 8

What is the significance of Fletcher v Peck 1810?

Answer 8

Was the first time starte law was ruled unconstitutional

Established the power of the sc to review state legislation

Question 9

How did Chief Justice John Marshall justify the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review?

Answer 9

Neccicary to ensure that the constitution has equal application across the states

Question 10

What stages do cases go through once they reach the Supreme Court?

Answer 10

1- conference.
Judges meet and debate which appeals to hear. Case needs 4 votes to be heard.

2- filing brief
Judges compile a legal review of the case. Amicus Curee briefs are also submitted at this stage

3- oral arguments made by lawyers

4- conference with judges who cast vote.

one judge on the majority produces a brief explaining their sentence.
Any other judge can also make a brief explaining their verdict

Question 11

What influence does Congress have over who sits on the Supreme Court?

Answer 11

Congress can impeach the court (HOR impeaches the justice and the SC acts as the court which tries them

Congress also ratifies appointments to the court

Question 12

How can Congress overturn the Supreme Court’s decisions?

Answer 12

By amendment to the constitution

26th amendment overturned Oregon v. Michell

(this was the amendment which lowerred the voting age)

Question 13

Why is time such a big limit on the Supreme Court’s influence?

Answer 13

They only have time to review 80-100 cases per session

Question 14

Why have some important constitutional questions gone unanswered?

Answer 14

Justices cannot initiate and action and can only select from cases which have been put to them

Question 15

Why have some important constitutional questions gone unanswered?

Answer 15

Justices cannot use iniatitves to and must choose from cases which have been put to them

Question 16

Why did the decision in Brown v. Board of education have on limited impact on segregated schools

Answer 16

Judges ruled that secegretated was unconstitutional

Government of Arkansaw ordered national guard to stop black stuendents entering school

Question 17

How did FDR influence the decisions of the Supreme Court in the 1930s?

Answer 17

Threatened to add members to the court if the conservative court coni led to block his liberal spending package

Question 18

What is stare decisis? How does it limit the Supreme Court?

Answer 18

Legal precendednt

It doesn’t limit the SC as future courts cannot be bound by previous courts

Question 19

Why, despite the principle of stare decisis, are the Supreme Court Justices unable to bind future courts?

Answer 19

because societal attitudes change and the needs to the constitution can reduce.

Question 20

What protects the independence of the US Supreme Court?

Answer 20

Consitution
- separation of powers
- appointment system
- separated powers

Question 21

Why do some presidents get to nominate more justices than others?

Answer 21

More vacancies

Carter appointed 0 justices

Question 22

How does the President decide their nomination?

Answer 22

list of nominees drawn up usually from the court of appeals or the department for justice

Question 23

Why are nominees scrutinised by the FBI and ABA?

Answer 23

shortlist is backgroundcheked by FBI

The ABA (American bar association) also ranks the qualifications of applicants

Question 24

What role does the Senate Judiciary Committee play in the confirmation process?

Answer 24

the committee holds a hearing for each applicant. the committee also receives written and formal testimonies including national campaigns

Question 25

Why was the 2005 nomination of Harriet Miers unsuccessful?

Answer 25

national campaign against her.

no clear stance on issues

Question 26

How have Senate confirmation votes changed since the 1980s?

Answer 26

became more partisan

no democrat senator supported a trump nominee to the SC

Question 27

Why do some argue that the confirmation process is now a test of ideology, rather than competence?

Answer 27

all votes have become more partisan

Question 28

Why did Democrats oppose Robert Bork’s nomination in 1987

Answer 28

Very conservatives
All democrats oppose
This was an ideological vote

Question 29

Why are there different theories on how the US Constitution should be interpreted?

Answer 29

No instructions or indicators in the constitution

Question 30

What do strict constructionists argue?

Answer 30

narrow and literal into

Dear that it would become a politicised document

Question 31

What do originalists argue?

Answer 31

Should be interprets based on meaning

Question 32

What do loose constructionists argue?

Answer 32

evolve and changes to reflect society

Question 33

How do the different philosophies view the decision in Roe v. Wade (1973)?

Answer 33

Strict Constructionsits- that the court should say niothign of the right to privacy in the fourth amendment

Orgionalsits- litteral interpretations. So meaning of how it was worded

Question 34

How else are originalists and loose constructionists usually different?

Answer 34

Origionalists focus on meaning

loose constructionists value purposes and context

Question 35

What are the arguments in favour of originalism?

Answer 35

Look at structure and history decide what a reasonable reader would have understood it to mean

provdides a consistent and reliable document

Question 36

What are the arguments in favour of loose constructionism?

Answer 36

applied flexibly to meet long term needs

Question 37

What is judicial restraint?

Answer 37

Idea that the court should respect previous verdicts and are reluctant tot strike down legislative branch

Question 38

What is judicial activism?

Answer 38

sc can and must strike down the legislative branch

less sc as equal protection

willing to overturn precendent

Question 39

How do the court’s critics often use these terms differently?

Answer 39

ac- when judges on their own beliefs make decisions

JR- when justices strike down laws which are controversial

Question 40

Why did conservatives accuse the Warren Court of judicial activism in the 50s/60s?

Answer 40

Conservatives accused the Warren Court of judicial activism in the 1950s and 1960s for expanding civil rights, limiting state power, and broadening individual liberties. Landmark rulings like Brown v. Board of Education (desegregation) and Miranda v. Arizona (rights of the accused) were seen as overreach, bypassing legislative authority and traditional values.

Question 41

Why did conservatives accuse the Burger Court of judicial activism in the 70s/80s?

Answer 41

Roe V. Wade

Overturned lots of state laws

many conservatives disagreed

Question 42

Why was it liberals accusing the Rehnquist Court of judicial activism in the 70s/80s?

Answer 42

Bush v. Gore

5-4 ruled that bush won.

those that ruled in favour of bush were appointed by democrats

Question 43

How activist is today’s Roberts’ Court? Why has it angered liberals and conservatives?

Answer 43

The Roberts Court has been activist in reshaping major legal precedents, angering both liberals and conservatives at different times. Liberals criticize its rulings on issues like Dobbs v. Jackson (overturning Roe v. Wade), weakening voting rights, and favoring corporate power. Conservatives, meanwhile, have been frustrated by rulings upholding Obamacare, protecting LGBTQ+ rights, and preserving some gun restrictions. While often leaning conservative, the Court’s unpredictability—especially Chief Justice Roberts’ focus on institutional legitimacy—has led to criticism from both sides.

Question 44

What arguments are there in support of judicial activism?

Answer 44

Protects Individual Rights – Courts must actively safeguard constitutional rights, especially for marginalized groups who may lack political power. Landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education (1954) ended segregation, demonstrating activism’s role in advancing justice.
Adapts the Constitution to Modern Needs – The Constitution is a living document, and judicial activism ensures its principles remain relevant to contemporary issues, such as privacy rights in the digital age (Roe v. Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges).
Checks Legislative and Executive Overreach – Courts act as a crucial check on government abuses. Judicial activism can prevent majoritarian tyranny and unconstitutional policies, as seen in cases striking down discriminatory laws or executive overreach.
Corrects Legislative Inaction – When Congress or state legislatures fail to address pressing issues (civil rights, environmental protection, etc.), courts can step in to ensure justice and equality.
Strengthens Democracy – By upholding fundamental rights and expanding protections, judicial activism fosters a more inclusive democracy where all voices are heard.

Question 45

What arguments are there in support of judicial restraint?

Answer 45

Share

You said:
produce a 50 word summary of Why did conservatives accuse the Warren Court of judicial activism in the 50s/60s?
ChatGPT said:
Conservatives accused the Warren Court of judicial activism in the 1950s and 1960s for expanding civil rights, limiting state power, and broadening individual liberties. Landmark rulings like Brown v. Board of Education (desegregation) and Miranda v. Arizona (rights of the accused) were seen as overreach, bypassing legislative authority and traditional values.

You said:
How activist is today’s Roberts’ Court? Why has it angered liberals and conservatives?
ChatGPT said:
The Roberts Court has been activist in reshaping major legal precedents, angering both liberals and conservatives at different times. Liberals criticize its rulings on issues like Dobbs v. Jackson (overturning Roe v. Wade), weakening voting rights, and favoring corporate power. Conservatives, meanwhile, have been frustrated by rulings upholding Obamacare, protecting LGBTQ+ rights, and preserving some gun restrictions. While often leaning conservative, the Court’s unpredictability—especially Chief Justice Roberts’ focus on institutional legitimacy—has led to criticism from both sides.

You said:
How activist is today’s Roberts’ Court? Why has it angered liberals and conservatives?
ChatGPT said:
The Roberts Court has been activist in shaping key legal precedents, frequently overruling past decisions and interpreting the Constitution in ways that significantly impact policy. It has angered both liberals and conservatives by taking bold stances on controversial issues.

Liberals criticize the Court for its conservative rulings, such as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), which overturned Roe v. Wade and eliminated federal abortion protections, and decisions weakening affirmative action, voting rights, and environmental regulations. They argue that the Court is aggressively pushing a conservative agenda rather than respecting precedent and democratic processes.

Conservatives, however, have been frustrated when the Court has not gone as far as they had hoped. Chief Justice John Roberts has occasionally sided with liberal justices on high-profile cases, such as upholding the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and rejecting extreme challenges to election laws. Some conservatives also disapprove of rulings that have preserved LGBTQ+ rights and certain gun control measures.

Ultimately, the Roberts Court has been highly influential and activist, with its decisions shaping American law and society in lasting ways. Its willingness to overturn precedent and assert judicial power has fueled controversy across the political spectrum.

You said:
arguments for judicial activism and judicial restraint
ChatGPT said:
Arguments for Judicial Activism
Protects Individual Rights – Courts must actively safeguard constitutional rights, especially for marginalized groups who may lack political power. Landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education (1954) ended segregation, demonstrating activism’s role in advancing justice.
Adapts the Constitution to Modern Needs – The Constitution is a living document, and judicial activism ensures its principles remain relevant to contemporary issues, such as privacy rights in the digital age (Roe v. Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges).
Checks Legislative and Executive Overreach – Courts act as a crucial check on government abuses. Judicial activism can prevent majoritarian tyranny and unconstitutional policies, as seen in cases striking down discriminatory laws or executive overreach.
Corrects Legislative Inaction – When Congress or state legislatures fail to address pressing issues (civil rights, environmental protection, etc.), courts can step in to ensure justice and equality.
Strengthens Democracy – By upholding fundamental rights and expanding protections, judicial activism fosters a more inclusive democracy where all voices are heard.
Arguments for Judicial Restraint
Respects Separation of Powers – Courts should defer to elected legislatures, which are more accountable to the public, rather than imposing their own interpretations of the law.
Preserves Legal Stability and Precedent – Frequent overturning of precedent undermines consistency in the law. Judicial restraint ensures predictability and respect for previous rulings.
Prevents Judicial Overreach – Activist judges may impose personal ideologies rather than interpreting laws as written. Restraint avoids unelected judges making policy decisions better left to lawmakers.
Encourages Democratic Decision-Making – Major societal changes (e.g., abortion rights, gun control) should be decided by the people through elected representatives rather than imposed by courts.
Reduces Partisan Influence – A restrained judiciary minimizes accusations of political bias and maintains public trust in the courts as neutral arbiters of the law.
Both judicial activism and restraint have played key roles in shaping U.S. law, and the debate continues over when courts should intervene versus defer to other branches of government.

Question 46

Why can the Supreme Court be described as a legal and a political institution?

Answer 46

Political because of judicial review

argued to be a 3rd legislative branch

Question 47

Why does the power of judicial review politicise the Supreme Court?

Answer 47

judges have the power to support or reject legislation which is partisan

Question 48

How has the appointments process become more political?

Answer 48

presidents are open about political views on opinions and decisions

Question 49

Why are some of the Roberts Court’s decisions seen as more political than others?

Answer 49

trump appointments

Question 50

What suggests that the Roberts Court is more politicised than past Supreme Courts?

Answer 50

can change the balance between constructions and originalist views.

Justice O’Connor retired allowing the court to become more strict constructionist

Mc Connel v. FEC 2003
Citizens United V. FEC 2010

changed back to more strict verdict

Question 51

Why can a single retirement have a large impact on the decisions of the Supreme Court?

Answer 51

Change the balance of the courts

Question 52

How do pressure groups add to the politicisation of the Supreme Court?

Answer 52

Amicuse Curve briefs

100% cases have broief in 2017-18 session

Question 53

Is the politicisation of the Supreme Court overstated? What are some of the counter arguments?

Answer 53

presidents cannot guarantee as are appointed

ruth wouldn’t have been appointed by republicans now but was when she was appointed

most votes are unanimous

judges aren’t elected