US Supreme Court Flashcards
Role of the SCOTUS
to uphold + interpret the constitution
What does the constitution state on the SCOTUS dealing with constitutional issues?
‘they will rule on them when they happen and are brought to them, but CANNOT initiate them
Appellate jurisdiction
SCOTUS is the ultimate court of appeal
Original jurisdiction
it is possible for SCOTUS to be the first place a case is heard
What are inferior courts + how many are there?
they are courts created by acts of congress that are lower status + there are 13 circuit courts and 94 district courts
How is the SCOTUS independent?
- judicial branch is separate from the executive and legislative branch
- the appointment process stops the presi acting alone + ensures safeguards
- life tenure appointment
Process of judicial review
case is heard like a normal trial and voted upon -> once voted upon, a written opinion of majority and minority are published (can set important precedent)
Stages of the appointment process
vacancy -> nomination -> aba rating -> sjc hearings and vote -> full senate vote
Features of conservative judges
- tend to favour authority over civil rights
- favour capital punishment and key conservative rights e.g. right to bear arms (2nd A) + pro life
- often favour state rights over federal power
- take a strict constructionist view on the constitution (literal meaning)
Features of liberal judges
- tend to favour civil rights (in particular in relation to race/sexual orientation + women right to choose)
- tend to support criminal justice reform
- oppose 2nd A + capital punishment
- often favour federal power over state power
- take a loose constructionist view on the constitution
Strengths of appointment process
- excellent nominees currently on the bench received strong cross-party support in the Senate e.g. Chief Justice Roberts (78-22)
- involvement of ABA allows an impartial assessment of a nominee
- both the executive branch and the legislative branch have an input into the process, a good example of constitutional checks and balances
Weaknesses of appointment process
- once confirmed, justices have no accountability and can remain on the Court for life.
- two nominees who did not merit the ABA’s top rating (Thomas and Alito) have been confirmed since 1991.
- reliance on the Senate Judicial Committee to run the confirmation process led to the Republican-controlled Senate’s irresponsible refusal to schedule a hearing for Merrick Garland in 2016, leaving a seat vacant for over a year.
- increasing politicization of the confirmation process since 2005 means that the recent nominees have been judged more on their political and judicial outlook than on their experience and personal qualifications.
Factors affecting appointment process?
- ability: are they qualified?
- demographics
- ideology
- political: is senate hostile or friendly?
Current composition of SCOTUS
6-3 split in favour of conservatives
Significant judgements: DC vs Heller 2008
- 2nd A, overturned a DC ban on handguns + shotguns and rifles to be disassembled
- all of which was deemed unconstitutional
- 5-4 judgement
Significant judgements: Citizens United v FEC 2010
- 1st A, reversed regulation of money spent in elections by declaring parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 2002 as unconstitutional
- stemmed from Citizens United wanting to air an anti-Clinton advert before the 2008 primaries
- 5-4 judgement
Significant judgements: Riley v California 2014
- 4th A, protected people from unwarranted searches of their phones by police
- 9-0 judgement
- good eg to illustrate the application of the constitution to the modern world
Significant judgements: Obergefell v Hodges 2015
- constitutional guarantee of right for gay marriage
- forced many states to change their policy (only legal in 36 states before)
- 5-4 judgement
- Chief Justice Roberts argued that the court exceeded its powers and it should’ve been left to congress
Judicial activism
philosophy that justices should use their position to promote desirable social outcomes from their rulings.
Examples of judicial activism
- warren court fundamentally changed the position of civil rights in the usa with rulings such as Brown v BoE + Miranda v AZ
- Roe v Wade 1973
Judicial restraint
when judges defer to the elected branches (exec + legislature) and put great emphasis into the precedents set by previous court’s judgements
Stare decisis
‘let the decision stand’ - legal principle that judges should respect precedents
How has Chief Justice Roberts showed strong judicial restraint
- he upheld the Whole Womens Health v Hellerstedt decision as precedent in a case involving Louisiana in 2020 even though he dissented against the initial judgement
- he also attacked majority verdicts in Obergefell v Hodges + Bostock v CC which he saw as judicial activism
- thirdly, he showed restraint in his refusal to overturn the ACA (even though conservatives gave him shit for doing so)
Civil liberties
basic rights and freedoms often ensured in democracies through law eg freedom of speech, movement, assembly etc
Civil rights
guarantees of equal social opportunities and equal protection under the law regardless of age, race etc
1st A
- freedom of speech
- many SCOTUS hearings on this such as Citizens United vs FEC 2010 (reversing regulation of money spent on elections)
- also freedom of religion
- seen through Engel v Vitale which prohibits govt written prayers in public schools
2nd A
- right to bear arms
- DC v Heller 2008 - overturned a DC ban on handguns in the home and requirement that shotguns and rifles had to be kept unloaded and disassembled
4th A
- freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures
- warrants needed to search private property + police require ‘probable cause’
- extended to mobile phones through Riley vs Cali 2014
5th A
- upholds due process + right to remain silent
- most important case was Miranda v AZ 1966 (reading of rights on arrest)
10th A
- reserved rights of states
- this A protects federalism + restricts the power of federal govt
- ‘any power not explicitly given to federal govt falls to state govts’
- can conflict with Art1Sec8 (the elastic clause) allowing congress ‘to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for caring into execution of foregoing powers’
Affirmative action
- institutions attempt to redress historical imbalances eg if there is underrepresentation of ethnic minorities
- e.g. Fisher v UT
Political nature of the SCOTUS
- nomination + confirmation are highly political eg the appointment of ACB and blocking of Garlands appointment
- makes key decisions on key issues of public policy e.g gun rights, abortion, LGBT rights and immigration
- judicial review means that decisions are ‘quasi-legislative’ - making the court like a 3rd legislative house as justices ‘legislate from the bench’ (heavy tension over this in Roberts court
Judicial nature of the SCOTUS
- justices are judges NOT politicians, their credentials are based on experience not political view (avoided since Borks nom in 1987)
- the court is independent of the other branches + protected by constitutional measures such as life-tenure which frees judges from political pressures
- judges make their decisions based on legal arguments
Judgement points for political vs judicial
- the appointment process: all 3 branches + media involvement has led to over-politicisation
- judicial activism: is it a step too far? has there been a lot recently?
- whether splits such as conservative+liberal, living const+OG are seen as political division or judicial interpretation
Arguments for living constitution
- framers deliberately made the const vague to allow future usage
- framers envisioned a living const that the SCOTUS would apply in an ever-changing context
- stops the const from becoming outdated and irrelevant
- many issues the framers would not have considered eg gay marriage that require the const to decide on
- judging the actual views + intentions of the framers is equally as subjective as any method in making a decision on how to apply the const in a modern context
Arguments for originalist (OG)
- the court should not be able to impose its own values on the const
- on issues not covered in the const, decisions should be made by the elected branches of govt (argument raised by Roberts in his dissent against Obergefell v Hodges 2015)
The extent of SCOTUS powers
- sovereignty lies with the const + the SCOTUS interprets the const (which is vague on many issues)
- can overturn the actions of the executive or acts of congress by deeming them ‘unconstitutional’
- using judicial activism, the court can essentially ‘legislate from the bench’
- the independence of the courts protected by the const - life tenure, protected salaries etc
The extent of checks and balances on SCOTUS powers
- the court is restricted to the powers given to it by the constitution and the WORDING of the constitution
- can only deal with constitutional issues brought to them (cannot themselves initiate cases)
- the appointment + amendment process give 2 means to congress to check the power of the SCOTUS
- if justices believe in judicial restraint, then they will defer to elected branches and to precedent, reducing their own powers
