Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

US Politics Summer Exam > Supreme Court > Flashcards

Supreme Court Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
U.S. Geography flashcards
1
Q

Ruling restricting gun control and what type of ruling it was

A
  • D.C v Heller - 2008
  • 5 v 4 in favour of Heller (conservative)
  • NOT A STATE LAW (D.C NOT A STATE)
  • Established an individual right to bear arms
  • Therefore federal Activist case.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Name a campaign finance case and what type of ruling it was

A
  • Citizens United v FEC - 5v4 in favour of citizens (conservative)
  • money = speech - set major precedent (federal activism).
  • Overturned Mconnel v FEC 2003 which stated campiagn donations were not free speech.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Case on healthcare 2012 and what type of ruling was it

A
  • NFIB v Sebelius
  • 5v4 in favour of Sebelius (Liberal) which upheld Obamacare/ACA (federal restraint)
  • Justice Roberts voted in favour of ACA for a different reason to the other 4, he did it because he viewed the individual mandate as a tax and that is congress’ role.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Case on same sex marriage 2013 - what did it overturn and what type of ruling was it

A

US v Windsor - said the definition of spouse as member of opposite gender in Defence of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. (Federal Activism)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Voting rights case 2013 - what it overturned + what type

A
  • Shelby County v Holder
  • overturned the need for certain states to have pre-clearance.
  • Overturned in 5v4 ruling as racism data was over 40 years old and put an impermissible burden on some states. (federal activism)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Case on same sex marriage 2015 - what type?

A
  • Obergefell v Hodges -
  • enforced the right for same sex marriage in all 50 states. (State activism) as its all 50 states.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Case on racism and segregation 1954 + what did it overturn?

A
  • Brown v Board of Education
  • struck down state law and stated segregation in public schools violated the equal protection clause.
  • Overturned Plessy v Fergerson
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Case on Flag Desecration 1989

A
  • Texas v Johnson - invalidated punishments for flag desecration that was enforce in 48/50 states.
    • US v Eichman saying flag desecration was freedom of speech.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Case on abortion 1973 and what case was used

A
  • Roe v wade
  • Struck down state laws that deemed abortion illegal.
  • Griswold v Connecticut (1965) right to privacy.
  • Since Roe v Wade states have have added impractical requirements to make abortions harder to receive.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Case that granted Judicial review over federal law in 1803 and state law in 1810.

A
  • Marbury v Maddison
  • stuck down Judiciary Act 1789 and by striking down an act of congress they then set a precedent for striking down acts of congress.
  • Also it was 1810 Fletcher v Peck for state law.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Case regarding Trump’s travel ban 2018

A
  • Trump v Hawaii
  • deemed it constitutional only after he made a series of amendments to it.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Case related to commerce clause and weed 2005

A
  • Gonzalez v Raich
  • ruled that Congress may criminalise the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if state law allows its use for medicinal purposes with power of commerce clause.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Case regarding Affirmative action in university 2016

A
  • Fisher v University of texas -
  • ruled that after strict scrutiny Texas’ application review was constitutional.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Gorshuch Replaced who and when?

A

Scalia + 2017

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Alito replaced who and when?

A

O’Connor + 2006

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Roberts replaced who and when?

A

Rehnquist + 2005

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Kavanaugh Replaced who and when?

A

Kennedy + 2018

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

ABA rating

A
  • in the appointments process the American bar association give them a qualification rating.
  • Clarence Thomas was the only one to receive just a ‘qualified’ rating.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Case that stuck down one of Obama’s immigration policies.

A
  • Texas v US (2016)
  • Struck down DAPA.
  • It was a split ruling so the lower courts decision was upheld.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Case that struck down Texas abortion laws

A
  • Whole Woman’s health v Hellerstedt 2015.
  • Struck down Texas laws that forced an undue burden on women by reducing the amount of abortion clinics to 7 in the state.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Judicial Activism

A
  • Using their position to overturn outdated precedents and aiming to achieve what they believe to be the best for society. (overturn more)
  • or overturning actions of the elected branches
22
Q

Judicial Restraint

A

Believing a ruling should have limited impact and they are in no way there for their political opinion. (don’t overturn much)

23
Q

Living Constitution + Loose constructionist

A

Constitution is an evolving document that must be understood in the current context and therefore applied rightly in the current context.

24
Q

Originalism + Strict constructionist

A

Believes that rulings should be based off the words and at a stretch the intent of the constitution and it should not change massively based on circumstances.

25
Q

Controversial case that upheld freedom of speech even if it causes emotional distress 2011

A
  • Synder v Phelps 2011.
  • Sided with the Westboro Baptist church.
  • Supreme court said that even in the case of severe emotional distress, freedom of speech still held.
26
Q

Chicago v Mcdonald

A

2010 - affirmed the right to guns.

27
Q

one of the cases that ruled on Guantanamo bay

A

Hamdan v Rumsfeld 2006 - ruled that some parts of it were unconstitutional.

28
Q

The SC appointment process

A
  • Vacancy occurs: They are appointed for life so one must either die, retire or be impeached.
  • Presidential nomination
  • ABA rating
  • Senate Judiciary Committee
  • Full Senate vote.
29
Q

Strengths of the Appointment process

A
  • Ensures independence
  • Ensures individuals are qualified
  • Role of elected branches gives some accountability
30
Q

Weaknesses of the Appointment process

A
  • Politicised by the President
  • Politicised by the Senate
  • Role of the Media, which can hinder the chances of a nominee through their coverage of them
31
Q

When was the last resignation, Death and potential impeachment of a justice

A
  • Resignation - Anthony Kennedy 2018
  • Last Death - Ruth Bader Ginsburg 2020
  • No impeachments but only one justice has had proceedings brought against them - Samuel Chase 1805
32
Q

Senate Judiciary Committee for Sotomayor and Thomas

A
  • Sotomayer - spoke for just 34% of her committee hearing
  • Thomas - received a split vote of 7-7 for his approval.
33
Q

Arguments in favour of the SC being Judicial (Non political) (6)

A
  • Justices can only rule that something is constitutional/unconstitutional
  • The Supreme court cant enforce its rulings
  • SC has no initial power
  • Justices are appointed based on experience
  • Constitution garuntees independence through life tenure and protected salaries.
  • Stare decisis - previous decision stands
34
Q

Arguments in favour of the SC being political (5)

A
  • Usually ruling on law or action of an elected branch.
  • Justices can be divided into liberal & conservative
  • Impact of cases extends beyond that specific case detail they ruled on.
  • They are approved and chosen by political branches.
  • Political figures all try and influence the courts with amicus briefs
35
Q

Arguments for the Supreme court being an “imperial judiciary” (5)

A
  • Judicial review allows the court to overrule the elected branches
  • Judicial review is almost impossible to overturn, only occuring once via constitutional amendment.
  • Justices are appointed for life and difficult to remove
  • Judicial activism
  • The SC choooses cases to decide that will have the biggest public impact.
36
Q

Arguments against the SC being an “Imperial Judiciary” (6)

A
  • They have no enforcement power
  • They can only rule on the constitution and nothing more.
  • they can only hear about 80 cases a year
  • it has been reluctant to rule on some particularly controverisal issues.
  • It is subject to checks and balances
  • many cases are not landmark and have no real public effect.
37
Q

Case that involved healthcare and abortion

A
  • Burwell v Hobby Lobby 2014
  • allows employers to opt out of providing contraception in healthcare coverage on the grounds of Religion
38
Q

Interesting Detail about the decision in US v Texas 2016

A
  • Scalia had just recently died(Feb 2016) and had not been replaced.
  • therefore this case was decided with 8 justices and therefore was a 4-4 split
  • The court is least effective when working with 8 justices as it can have ties.
  • Neil Gorsuch was appointed a whole year after Scalia’s death because the Senate refused to hear Merrick Garland’s appointment.
39
Q

Democrat’s failed SC nominee

A
  • Merrick Garland was nominated by Obama in March 2016 after Scalia’s death in Feb
  • He was a reasonably moderate candidate as Obama wanted bipartisan support.
  • McConnel refused to hear his nomination as it was too close to the election (a year)
  • He wanted the next president to appoint (trump) and also republicans care a lot more about the SC so they are more likely to vote knowing there is an empty seat.
  • Meant the SC was 8 people for a year, ineffective
40
Q

Republican 2020 succsessful nominee

A
  • Amy Coney Barrett replaced RBG
  • Very conservative on womens issues etc.
  • Appointed in October 2020, 1 month before the election where Trump lost
  • Highlight contrast between this and Garland’s appointment.
41
Q

Example of Good Congressional oversight in nomination process

A
  • Harriet Myers was Bush’ nomination and it became very clear that she was unqualified and not fit for the SC job.
  • The senate blocked her nomination with bipartisan support.
42
Q

Textualism

A
  • Plain objective reading of the text
  • Current meaning of the words today
  • Does not care about consequences or impact of ruling
43
Q

Original Meaning and example of justice

A
  • Not just what the words mean but the founding fathers intent at the time.
  • Scalia
  • Used a dictionary from the founding father’s time to define the words.
44
Q

Judicial Precedent (constitutional interpretation)

A
  • using previous rulings set by the SC to decide other cases.
  • Justices are more restrained when overturning trulings that have lots of different cases resting on that ruling.
45
Q

Pragmatism

A

Considering future implications on society and making logical decision based on constitution

46
Q

Case on EAs

A

Reid v Covert 1957

  • Affirmed that EAs cannot contradict federal law
47
Q

Case on DACA being rescinded

A

Regents of the University of California vs Department of Homeland Security 2020

  • Stated that the attempt to rescind DACA was “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
  • Therefore unconstitutional
48
Q

Case on Watergate scandal

A

US v Nixon 1974

Deemed that Nixon couldnt use exec privilege in the watergate scandal

49
Q

Case regarding the Political question doctrine

A
  • Baker v Carr 1962
  • Defined what is judiciable
  • Redistricting is
  • Other “political stuff” like foreign policy is not
50
Q

Case where court said partisan gerrymandering was non judiciable

A
  • Rucho v Common Clause 2019
  • “Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” John Roberts
  • Contradicts Baker v Carr
51
Q

Recent Case regarding LGBTQ Rights

A
  • Bostock v Clayton County 2020 – Bostock fired once his employers found out he was gay
  • He argued that he was fired for his sex which is a protected characteristic in the Civil Rights Act (which sexual orientation is not.)
  • He said he was fired for being a man who liked men whereas if he was a woman who liked men then it wouldn’t be an issue.
  • Neil Gorsuch and Roberts sided with the liberals in this case.
  • This is a modern, loose constructionist reading of the Civil Rights Act which protected civil rights.
    *
52
Q

Distinction between Individual and Civil Rights

A
  • Civil - For them to be protected, the government needs to actively legislate or rule protecting them. Eg Voting Rights, race, sex etc
  • Individual - for them to be protected the government needs to restrain from ruling on them; Eg gun rights, free speech, religion

US Politics Summer Exam (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions