supreme court and public policy Flashcards
what 3 ways can the court influence public policy
- create new policy
- uphold exisitic policy
- not hearing a case
example of inaction influencing policy
the courts decision to not hear the pallen parent hood of arkansas v jegley case which challenged arkansas strict restictions of medically induced abortions (accsess to the pill)
menas that it allowed the law to comeinto force and inaction clearly is shaping the development of public policy
how can some rullings that protect minoriteis affect others
the effeteness of the supreme court’s rights protection is that by protecting one minority rights others may be ignored.
for example the obergafell v hodges protected LGBTQ rights but went against freedom of religion
as did snyder v phelps honouring religion over gay rights ect
how can the amount of cases heard effect the effectiveness of rights protection
the court only hears 1% of laws so many of those who feel as though their rights have been infringed will nenver be heard by the court
ex. the ingoring of planned parenthood v jegry meant the unportection of repoductive rights of women
effectivness being limited by lack of enfrocement
the court have no power to enforce it’s rullings and instead relys on the power of the president, congress and federal bodies to enforce itse decisions
despite roe v wage and whole women’s health v hellerstead texas still limited abortionsin 2021
wording of the consitution making protection of rights harder
judical action is bound by the consition, therfore it may be difficult to protect rights in some cases whent he constiution clearly points to it not being unconsitutional
in the snyder v phelps case despite the insensitivity it was hard to protect the rights of LGBTQ when the constiution so clearly states that freedom of speech and religion
shelby counter v holder
upheld the voting rights act aruging that it the voting rights act which had requirement sof preclearnace of 9 states voting regulation who had history of discimination in voting was outdated and unconstitutional which effectively dissintergated key elemetnes of the voting rights act 1965
bush v gore
after 2000 presdietnial election gore appealed to the court to have 9,000 votes manually recounted trying to change teh outcome
the court rulled against this which upheld federalism as it upheld the state of floridas states rights and voting countirng system
boundamine v bush
boudamine was a guantamo bay pirsoner who after 5 years hadnt had a fair trial contested the 5th amendment
judicial acvitivsm and loose interpretation upheld the freedomand right of the prisoner
DC v helller
strict orignaincial
allowing people to kepp handguns agains the states law upholding the stict interpretation of the 2nd ammendemt
burwell v hobby lobby
hobby lobby were resticing the right to contraception to workers which was a right given to workers int he ACA due to the owners of hobby lobby being chrisitians
this was upheldn by the 1 st amendemnt freedom of religion
US v windsor
found that clause three of the DOMA (defence of marriage act) went against the 5th amendmetn right of due process as it didnt legally recognsie smae sex couples federal recognition
judicial activism
obergafell v hodgest
interpreted the 14th amendment to argue that the fundamental right ot marry is guaranteed for same sex couples due to equal protection of the 14th amendmetn caluse
oringidnalisminteprting he consittutiont to apply to modern america
trump v hawaii
upheld the presdient executive order resticing immigrationf orm 12 muslim majoirity countries becuase ti had no mention of religion so didnt go agaisnt the 1st amendemtn
orgeon v mitchell
upheld the voting rights act in lowering the federal voting age to 18 however said that congress has no right in enfocing the age limit and voting regusaltion on a state lelvel
