The Supreme Court Flashcards

1
Q

Outline the significance of the appointment process for the president.

A

Justices sit for life and thus can be the only legacy of that presidency long after the president leaves office. E.g. Justice Kennedy served from 1988 to 2018 - 30 years (appointed by Raegan).

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

Outline the confirmation process of the judiciary in the Senate.

A
  • Nominees appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  • The nominee may wish to withdraw to prevent embarrassment - e.g. 2005 Harriet Miers withdrew because conservative Senators became sceptical as to her ideologies.
  • The ratio of the committee gives an indication as to the Senate’s intention -e.g. Ginsberg’s 18-0 vote led to a 96-3 vote.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Give three ways the judicial appointments process has become more politicised.

A
  • President’s use a ‘litmus test’ - looking at previous rulings rather than legal qualifications e.g. Clarence Thomas.
  • Clarence Thomas’ mendacity was focused upon (allegations of sexual assault) rather then meritocracy (legal acumen) during hearings.
  • During divided government appointments become almost impossible e.g. Merrick Garland - refused to be heard by Republican Senate. - Unified government - questions are soft and there is little resistance.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Give three ways in which the appointments of the judiciary are important.

A
  • Life tenure - Kennedy appointed by Raegan - served for 30 years.
  • Judicial review places great power in the hands of a few -e.g. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.
  • They occur infrequently - average of every 2 years - following National Labour Board v. Canning, Obama didn’t appoint for 4 years.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Give some ways that judicial review has made the Supreme Court a political institution.

A
  • Mark Shields - ‘the only thing separating the two parties is abortion’. - the SC is the main body to rule on this issue - politics is an implication of the SC’s remit.
  • Bush v. Gore - effectively handed the 2000 election to Bush - a result of Raegan and H. W. Bush’s conservative appointments?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Define judicial activism and give some examples.

A
  • Taking on a larger case ‘docket’ and making rulings into contentious social matters e.g. abortion.
  • The Warren Court was said to be a judicially active institution because of rulings such as Brown v. Board.
  • Roe v. Wade
  • Obergefell v. Hodges.
  • Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.
  • Baze v. Rees - lethal injection was not cruel or unusual.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Define judicial restraint and provide examples.

A

Justices only use their power in seldom cases - they would rather congress legislate on contentious matters.
e.g. Toto v. United States - the federal government had the final say on gun policy.

Follow the principle of stare decisis.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Give an example of ruling on the first amendment right - freedom of religion.

A

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris - an Ohio programme that provided financial aid to parents to send their children to religious schools was unconstitutional.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Give an example of a ruling on the first amendment right - freedom of speech.

A
  • Citizens United v. FEC - businesses and unions have the same rights of freedom of speech as individuals.
  • Texas v. United States - burning a flag was considered freedom of speech.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Give an example of a ruling on the second amendment right - the right to bear arms.

A
  • District of Columbia v. Heller - Columbian law that banned handguns and placed restrictions on shotguns was unconstitutional.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Give an example of a ruling on the 8th amendment right - cruel and unusual punishments.

A
  • Ring v. Arizona - death penalty sentenced by judges, rather than a jury, contravened the 6th amendment - the right to a fair trial.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Give an example of a public policy ruling on abortion.

A
  • Roe v. Wade- 14th amendment’s right to ‘liberty’ extended to marriage and family life.
  • Gonzales v. Carhart - upheld the ban on partial birth abortions under the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act 2003.
  • Medical Services v. Russo - highly restrictive Louisiana state laws were unconstitutional.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Give an example of a public policy decision on marriage equality.

A
  • United States v. Windsor - Defence of Marriage Act 1996 was unconstitutional.
  • Obergefell v. Hodges - decriminalised same-sex marriage in the US - dissenters took the view that the court was not a legislature.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Give two occasions on which the SC has ruled on congressional statute.

A

Healthcare Reform:
- National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius - Upheld the Affordable care Act’s requirement for individuals to be covered by health insurance.

Immigration:
- United States v. Arizona - struck down Arizona immigration law (SB1070) that encroached on the federal government’s remit on immigration.

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

Give some occasions on which the Supreme Court have overruled the president.

A
  • Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - the military commissions created to sentence detainees was unconstitutional.

National Labour Relations Board v. Canning - Obama’s recess appointments were unconstitutional - Obama’s own appointees (Sotomayor and Kagan) found against him.

United States v. Texas - Obama’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans - would allow 5 million refugees residence in US - was unconstitutional as he had no grounds to make such drastic changes without congressional approval.

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

Give some analysis of judicial review allowing for interpretation of the constitution.

A

Prevents amendments to the constitution because the ease of judicial ‘interpretation’ amendments removes the need for formal amendment.

Gonzales v. Carhart - prodigious impact on the constitution that would only be possible through congressional amendment.

17
Q

Give some analysis of judicial review politicising the judiciary.

A

An institution that interferes with issues such as: abortion, gun control and the death penalty is a political institution.

  • E.g. United States v. Texas - Obama’s Deferral for Parents of Americans - declared unconstitutional.
18
Q

Give some analysis of judicial review giving the judiciary a quasi-legislative function.

A

‘Legislating from the bench’ - characterised by loose constructionists.

E.g. decriminalisation of gay marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges - seen to be crossing into the remit of congress.

19
Q

Give some analysis of judicial review allowing for the protection of rights.

A
  • Ring v. Arizona’s ratio demonstrates the SC’s ability to upkeep and guard ancient legal principles (Magna Carta)
  • Their decision to protect certain rights is often criticised ‘one man’s equality is another man’s discrimination’.
20
Q

Make the case that the USSC is more political than it’s UK counterpart regarding judicial review.

A

US - can use judicial review to strike down laws - e.g. Arizona v. United States - SB1070 immigration law stuck down as it encroached on Federal gov’s remit.

UK - Merely persuade parliament to change the law - statute is supreme law - e.g. R (Anderson) v. Secretary of Housing - s.29 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 violated article 6. - repealed by Parliament in s.303 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

21
Q

Make the case that the USSC is more political than its UK counterpart in relation to presidential actions.

A

US - National Labour Relations Board v. Canning - Obama’s recess appointments were declared unconstitutional.

UK - also declare ultra vires PM’s actions - R (Miller) v. PM - proroguing parliament was ultra vires.

More serious consequence in the US though.

22
Q

Make the case that the USSC is more politicised than its UK counterpart in relation to elections.

A

US - can decide the outcome of presidential elections - e.g. Bush v. Gore - split largely on party lines (5-4) - effectively handed the election to Bush - different philosophy, different result.

UK - Separation of powers - would never occur in the UK - form coalition instead.

23
Q

Make the case that the UKSC is more politicised than its US counterpart in relation to devolution.

A

UK - able to apportion devolved powers - e.g. Attorney General’s Reference of the Wales Agriculture Bill 2014 - challenged the bill by claiming it went beyond the Wales Act 2006.

US - Toto v. United States - federal government have the final say on gun policy.

24
Q

Make the case that the USSC is more political than its UK counterpart in relation to the appointments process.

A

US - Appointed by the president - the president may choose someone based on their philosophy rather than legal merit - e.g. Raegan’s Justice Kennedy who served for 30 years.

  • Majority of Senate rejections occur during times of divided government - e.g. Robert Bork and Merrick Garland.
  • UK - made by the Judicial Appointments Committee - completely free from political interference.