The Supreme Court and Civil Rights Flashcards
Arguments for affirmative action
Promotes diversity
Rights previous wrongs
Promotes equality of outcome
Arguments against affirmative action
Leads to disadvantage for another group
Minorities may be admitted into courses or given jobs which they are ill-equipped to cope
Condescending and demeaning to minority achievement
Perpetuates a society based on race
Affirmative action Supreme Court case
Fisher v Texas (2016)
Supreme Court upheld the university’s affirmative action programme 4-3
Supreme Court on affirmative action
Gratz v Bollinger (2003) - University of Michigan’s admissions programme declared unconstitutional - too ‘mechanistic’, as minority students given 20/150 points required for admission (6-3)
Grutter v Bollinger (2003) - University of Michigan’s law school’s admissions programme ruled constitutional - used a more ‘individualised’ approach (5-4)
Public opinion on affirmative action
63% vs 29%
4% vs 8% vs 87% (African Americans)
Supreme Court appointment process
Vacancy occurs - 119 since 1789 (1 every 2 years)
The President instigates search for possible nominees -senior White House aides / officials in the Justice Department / ABA
The President announces his nomination - Followed by ABA rating
The Senate Judiciary Committee holds a confirmation hearing on the nomination and makes a recommendatory vote - eg. 2005 Harriet Myers withdrawal / Kavanaugh scrutiny
The nomination is debated and voted on in the Senate - 12 rejections sicne 1789 (Robert Bork 1987)
Flaws with the Supreme Court appointment process
Politicised by the role of the President
Politicised by the role of the Senate - Bork/Thomas/Kavanaugh/ $2 million spent on Alito campaign
Politicised by the role of the media - fed lurid allegiations and tastless details - Thomas / Kavanaugh
Importance of Supreme Court nominees
Infrequent appointments
Life-terms
Only nine members of the court
Court’s power of judicial review
Supreme Court cases demonstrating judicial activism
Brown v Board of Education 1955
Roe v Wade 1973
Bush v Gore 2000
Latin term regarding judicial restraint
‘stare decisis’
Supreme Court on freedom of religion
All 5-4
Zelman v Simmons-Harris (2002) - Promotion of sectarian schools through vouchers (3,700, 96%)
Town of Greece v Galloway (2014) - Legislative bodies could begin meetings with prayer - No ‘establishment of religion’
Burwell v Hobby Lobby (2014) - ACA not enforcable as it violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA)
Supreme Court on freedom of speech
McConnell v FEC (2004) - Upheld McCain-Feingold Act
VS
Citizens United v FEC (2010) - Corporations have the same rights as individuals regarding rights of political speech
McCutcheon v FEC (2014) - Struck down limit on amount of money that could be donated to candidates and PACs
Supreme Court on gun control
DC v Heller (2008) - Declared DC law banning handgun ownership unconstitutional
McDonald v Chicago (2010) - States can not infringe upon the rights of individuals to bear arms, as a result of the Due Process Clause
Supreme Court on abortion
Gonzales v Carhart (2007) - Upheld ban on abortions occurring in the latter stages of the pregnancy (5-4)
VS
Roe v Wade (1973) - Due Process Clause provides a fundamental right of privacy (7-2)
Whole Women’s Health v Hellerstedt (2016) - Unconstitutional for states to place restrictions on the delivery of abortion services that create an undue burden on women seeking an abortion (5-2)
Supreme Court on marriage equality
US v Windsor (2013) - Declared DOMA unconstitutional because it denied the federal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, violating the Due Process Clause (5-4)
Obergefell v Hodges (2015) - Ruled that state bans on same-sex marriage violated the Due Process Clause (5-4)
What did Elena Kagan do before the Supreme Court?
Solicitor General
Where did all but one of the Supreme Justices work before the Supreme Court?
US circuit courts
Judicial review
The power of the Supreme Court to declare Acts of Congress, actions of the executive, or Acts or actions of state governments as unconstitutional
Judicial activism
Theory that judges should use their position to promote desirable social ends
Judges leading the way in matters of public policy, making and not interpreting the law
Criticism of judicial activism
‘imperial judiciary’
Judicial restraint
Theory that judges should defer to the legislative and executive branches, and to precedent established in previous court decisions.
Pro Supreme Court as a political institution
Appointed by a politician
Confirmed by politicians
Make decision on issues that feature in elections
Some of its decisions have a quasi-legislative effect (as if a new law has been passed)
Anti Supreme Court as a political institution
Its members are judges, not politicians
The Court is independent, not subject to political pressure
Justices do not involves themselves in political affairs, such as elections, campaigning or endorsements
Makes decisions based upon legal and constitutional argument, not political ideology.
Pro Supreme Court has too much power
Court gave itself the power of judicial review
Has increasingly declared Acts of Congress as unconstitutional (Snyder v Phelps 2011) - Westboro Baptist Church
Has made decisions out of line with the majority of public opinion
Unelected
Unaccountable
Anti Supreme Court has too much power
Checked by Congress and the President
No initiative power
Dependent upon other branches of government to enforce its decisions
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Established principle of judicial review
Brown v Board of Education (1954)
Declared the “separate but equal” doctrine as unconstitutional
Plessy v Ferguson (1896)
Established “separate but equal” doctrine, upholding constitutionality of racial segregation laws as long as facilities were of equal quality
Shelby County v. Holder (2013)
Federal clearance not required for states before implementing changes to voting laws
Potential for racial discrimination
Roberts majority
States rights
Brennan Center for Justice (2016) - 1/13 voting-age African-American had lost their right to vote as a result of a past conviction, 4 times highger than for all other Americans
NFIB v Sibelius (2012)
Upheld ACA, making health insurance mandatory
Supreme Court case displaying judicial restraint
Glossip v Gross (2015)
Ruled that lethan injection is not a cruel and unusual punishment
