Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

A Level Politics > US Supreme Court and Civil Rights > Flashcards

US Supreme Court and Civil Rights Flashcards

1
Q

what is the structure of the US federal courts?

A

US Supreme Court - 1 court

US Courts Of Appeals - 13 circuits (12 regional and 1 for the Federal Circuit)

US District Courts- 94 Districts, each with a bankruptcy court + US Court of International Trade + US Court of Federal Claims

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

what is the membership and makeup of the supreme court?

A

9 members - one chief justice (currently John Roberts) and eight associate justices

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

what is a strict constructionist?

A

A Supreme Court justice who interprets the Constitution strictly or literally, and tends to stress the retention of power by individual states

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

what is a loose constructionist?

A

A Supreme Court Justice who interprets the Constitution less literally, and tends to stress the broad grants of power to the federal government

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

what is an originalist?

A

A Supreme Court justice who interprets the Constitution in line with the meaning or intent of the framers at the time of enactment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

what does Living constitution mean?

A

The Constitution considered as a dynamic living document, interpretation of which should take account of the views of contemporary society

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

what is the appointment and confirmation process to the US supreme court?

A

vacancy
search
announcement
confirmation process

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

how many appointments to the supreme court have been made by the last 4 presidents

A

George W. Bush - 2
Obama - 2 (made 3 nominations)
Trump - 3
Biden - 0 so far

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

what are common pools of recruitment for the US Supreme court and who might the president go to for advice?

A

Pools of recruitment: federal Courts of Appeals (most common), state courts, Department of justice (eg Elena Kagan)

Sources of Advice: political advisers, key members of congress of own party, American Bar Association (especially Democrats)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

what happens in the confirmation process to the US supreme court?

A
  • nominee appears before Senate Judiciary Committee
  • committee votes on whether or not to recommend further action
  • Senate confirms through simple majority
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

what is an example of someone withdrawing during the confirmation process to the US supreme court.

A

In October 2005 Bush nominee Harriet Miers withdrew after conservative Republican senators weren’t convinced as to her ideological credentials

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is evidence to show that what the Senate Judiciary Committee votes preludes what will happen on the Senate floor?

A

The 1987 defeat of nomination of Robert Bork in the Judiciary Committee was a prelude to his defeat on the Senate floor. However, in 1993 Ruth Bader Ginsburg followed her unanimous approval by the committee with a 96-3 vote on the Senate floor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

what is wrong with the process of appointment and confirmation to the US Supreme Court

A

politicisation by the President, Senate and Media

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

what is an example of the appointment and confirmation process to the US Supreme Court not being politicised by the President?

A

President Bush nominated David Souter to the Supreme court in 1990 and was asked if he had asked him his views on abortion to which responded it would have been inappropriate. Justice Souter proved in his almost two decades on the Supreme court to be one of the most consistently liberal members of the court

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

what are examples of the appointment and confirmation process to the US supreme court being politicised by the Senate?

A
  • when Clarence Thomas was nominated in 1991, the senate concentrated on his conservative philosophy and allegations of sexual harassment. the final vote was mostly along party lines with only 11 democrats voting in favour and only 2 republicans voting against.
  • In 2006 the nomination of Samuel Alito not a single democrat in the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to confirm his confirmation and only 4 democrats in the senate voted to confirm him. In his nomination over $2 million was spent by advocacy groups on both sides trying to shape public opinion
  • In 2016, republic controlled senate refused to even consider Merrick Garland, claiming it was too close to the next election, yet confirming Amy Coney Barret much closer to an election
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

why could the senates role in the process of confirmation to the US supreme court no longer be seen as advise and consent?

A

members of the senate judiciary committee from the presidents party tend to ask soft questions of the nominee whereas members from the opposite party attempt to attack or embarrass the nominee through their questions rather than elicit information

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

why are supreme court nominations so important?

A
  • they occur infrequently
  • appointments for life
  • only nine members
  • power of judicial review
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

what is judicial review?

A

the power of the supreme courts to declare Acts of Congress, acts of the executive and acts or actions of state governments, unconstitutional

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

what are civil rights?

A

positive acts of government designed to protect persons against arbitrary or discriminatory treatment by government or individuals

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

what are civil liberties?

A

Those liberties, mostly spelt out in the Constitution, that guarantee the protection of persons, expression and property from arbitrary interference by government

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What is Marbury v Madison?

A

1803 case which established the principle of judicial review

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

what is the equal protection clause?

A

A clause in the Fourteenth Amendment requiring states to guarantee equal rights and protection to all states

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

what is judicial activism?

A

An approach to judicial decision which holds that judges should use their position to promote desirable social ends

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

examples of decisions which have resulted in accusations of judicial activism?

A
  • Brown v Board of Education (1954)
  • Roe v Wade (1973)
  • Bush v Gore (2000)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

what is judicial restraint?

A

An approach to judicial decision making which holds that judges should defer to the legislative and executive branches, and to precedent established in previous court decisions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

what does Stare decisis mean?

A

A legal principle that judges should look to past precedents as a guide wherever possible

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

what is the first amendment

A

freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of press

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

why is freedom of religion an issue in the supreme court

A

is creates a conundrum of how to ensure there is no established religion while preserving citizens rights to practise their religion freely. It has posed a seemingly insuperable problem for the Court in its attempts to protect religious freedoms. Critics of the court - often evangelical christians - believe that the court has been too attentive to the first half of the phrase (congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion) while ignoring the second half (or prohibiting the free exercise thereof)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

what happened in the case of Zelmann v Simmons-Harris?

A

the court upheld a programme in Ohio giving financial aid to parents to allow them to send their children to religious or private schools

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

what happened in Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. (2014)

A

the court ruled that the provision of the Affordable Care Act that family-owned corporations pay for health insurance coverage for contraception violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. The Courts majority stated that as corporations are ‘people’ they have the same constitutional rights as individual Americans. In her dissent RBG attacked the majority for what she saw as a radical overhaul of corporate rights. The decision was a clear rebuff to the Obama administration

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

what happened in McCutcheon v Federal Election Commission (2014) and what amendment does this affect?

A

The Court struck down a 1970s limit on the total amount of money wealthy donors can contribute to candidates and political committees. Affects the first amendment: freedom of speech

32
Q

what are the main two different interpretations of the second amendment?

A
  • As guaranteeing a collective right to own guns related only to the formation of state militias (taken by most liberals and democrats)
  • As guaranteeing an individual right to own guns just as all other rights in the bill of rights are individual (taken by most conservatives and republicans)
33
Q

what happened in District of Columbia v Heller (2008)

A

the court declared unconstitutional a law passed by the district of Columbia in 1976 banning the ownership of handguns and requiring that shotguns and rifles be kept unloaded and either disassembled or with the trigger locked. There was a five member majority. The court noted that the militia of the founding era was the body of ordinary citizens capable of taking up arms to defend the nation. The majority of the court took the view that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

34
Q

what is the issue in the supreme court over the 8th amendment

A

whether the death penalty is ‘cruel and unusual punishment’

35
Q

what happened in the case of Baze v Rees (2008)

A

the court decided that lethal injection did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment

36
Q

what happened in Roe v Wade (1973)

A

the court announced the the 14th amendment of liberty included freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life and that this right includes the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

37
Q

what happened in Gonzales v Carhart (2007)

A

In a 5-4 decision the court upheld the Partial Birth Ban Act of 2003. It banned the procedure for late term abortions if partly delivering the foetus and then crushing it’s skull to make removal easier. For the majority, Justice Kennedy announced that the government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show respect for the life within the woman. For the minority RBG stated that it was an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again

38
Q

why was Gonzales v Carhart a significant decision?

A
  • for the first time in history, the Court declared that a specific abortion procedure could be banned and made no exceptions for the health of the woman
  • the decision had a potential political significance in terms of the party political debate on abortion. conservative interest groups started taking an incremental approach.
  • The decision shows the significance of change in membership of the court, with conservative Samuel Alito having replaced the more centrist Sandra O’Connor
39
Q

what happened in Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt?

A

two parts of a Texas state law that imposed strict requirements on abortion providers in the state were declared unconstitutional as neither offered sufficient medical benefits to justify the burdens imposed. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton commented no deference was being given to state law.

40
Q

what happened in United States v Windsor (2013)

A

The court declared 5-4 that the defense of marriage act 1996 unconstitutional because it denied federal benefits to married same-sex couples that were available to other couples

41
Q

what happened in Obergefell v Hodges

A

the Court ruled 5-4 that state bans to prohibit same-sex marriage were a violation of the fourteenth amendment

42
Q

How does the case of Obergefell v Hodges illustrate the difference between strict constructionists and loose constructionists on the court?

A

The four conservative dissenting judges thought it was an issue that should be left to the states to decide. The majority took the loose constructionist position and to them the ‘life liberty and property’ rights of the fourteenth amendment ‘extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and identity’. It is also a clear example of the power of judicial review being used to turn the court into a quasi-legislative body.

43
Q

what happened in the case of National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius

A

the court, by 5 votes to 4, upheld most of the provisions on the Affordable Care Act, with Chief Justice Roberts joining the Court’s liberal foursome.

44
Q

why was the decision in National Federation of Independent Business v Selebius significant?

A

Democrats in Congress and and the Obama administration had argued that the provisions of the act were constitutional because of the powers granted to congress by the commerce clause - congress could write into the Act the so-called ‘individual mandate’ requiring every American to get insurance or pay a ‘penalty’. The court disagreed with the argument put forward by the Acts supporters, instead claiming the act was not regulating commerce but the lack of it. For the majority, Roberts argued that if the court allowed congress to claim the commerce power to force people to buy health insurance it could use it to force people to buy other things. But rather than declare it unconstitutional, the Chief Justice went on to say it was constitutional because it was not a ‘penalty’ but a tax therefore allowed.

45
Q

what decisions in the supreme court affected Bush and the Guantánamo Bay detainees

A
  • Rasul v Bush (2004) - court ruled foreign detainees held at US base in Guantanamo bay on the island of Cuba did have access to US federal courts to challenge their detention
  • Hamdan v Rumsfield (2006) - court declared unconstitutional the military commissions set up by George W.Bush to try people at Guantanamo Bay
  • Boumediene v Bush - court held in a 5-4 decision that procedures set up by the Bush administration and congress following the Hamdan decision in 2006 were inadequate to ensure that the detainees received their day in court.
46
Q

how did the supreme court affect obama and recess appointments

A

In National Labor Relations board v Noal Canning the court ruled 9-0 that President Obama lacked the constitutional authority to make high level executive branch appointments at a time when the Senate was technically able to give its advice and consent. the court found the President to gave exceeded his powers in making the three NLRB appointments back in 2012.

47
Q

Arguments for the supreme court being a political institution

A
  • Appointed by a politician
  • Confirmed by politicians, often on party line votes
  • Makes decisions on issues that feature in elections and over which the two main parties disagree
  • Some if its decisions have a quasi-legislative effect: it is as if a new law has been passed
  • some people have described it as a ‘third house of the legislature’
48
Q

Arguments against the supreme court being a political institution

A
  • Its members are judges, not politicians
  • The court is independent- not subject to political pressure
  • Justices do not involve themselves in party politics, elections, campaigning, endorsing candidates
  • Makes decisions based upon legal and constitutional argument, not political ideology
49
Q

Arguments for the supreme court having too much power

A
  • Court gave itself power of judicial review
  • It has declared more acts of congress unconstitutional as the decades have passed
  • It has made decisions that are out of line with the majority of public opinion
  • It is an unelected body
  • It is a largely unaccountable body
  • It has abused its power to bring about significant policy change
  • Yes when justices believe in a living constitution
50
Q

Arguments against the supreme court having too much power

A
  • It is checked by congress, which may initiate constitutional amendments effectively to override court decisions
  • congress has the power of impeachment
  • it has no initiative power
  • It is dependent upon the rule if law and other branches to enforce it’s decisions
  • public opinion is a restraining force on the Courts power
  • It is checked by the words of the constitution: where it is precise and not open to interpretation by the court
51
Q

what is busing?

A

The mandated movement of school children between racially homogenous neighbourhoods - white suburbs and black inner cities - to create racially mixed schools

52
Q

what are quotas?

A

A programme by which a certain percentage of places in e.g. higher education, employment, is reserve for people from previously disadvantaged backgrounds

53
Q

what is affirmative action

A

A programme giving members of a previously disadvantaged minority group a head start in ,e.g. higher education or employed.

54
Q

what was the case that ruled the University of Michigans affirmative action-based admissions programme for its undergraduate students was unconstitutional because it was too ‘mechanistic’ as it automatically awarded points to all black, hispanic and American-Indian applicants.

A

Gratz v Bollinger (2003)

55
Q

what did the court rule in Grutter v Bollinger (2003)

A

the court ruled 5-4 that the University Law School’s admissions programme was constitutional because it used a more ‘individualised’ approach in considering the racial profile of applicants.

56
Q

in what case did the court rule out racial quotas in university admissions programmes but left the door open to race being considered in admissions procedures?

A

University of California v Bakke (1978)

57
Q

what happened in the case of Fisher v University of Texas?

A
  • Fisher filed a lawsuit arguing she had been a victim of racial discrimination as minority students with less impressive qualifications had been admitted, and therefore her equal protection rights under the 14th amendment had been violated
  • the supreme court ruled that the university’s use of race in its admissions policy must be subjected to a stricter scrutiny because it involved possible discrimination and so the federal appeal court was instructed to rehear the case
  • In July 2014 the appeal court found again in favour of the University of Texas
  • the case was heard again by the supreme court in 2016
  • In a 4-3 ruling the court upheld the appeal court ruling, with the majority saying a university is partly defined by ‘intangible qualities’ including diversity
  • Justice Alito in his dissenting opinion said it was ‘affirmative action gone berserk based on offensive and unsupported stereotypes.
  • President Obama praised the courts ruling
58
Q

arguments for affirmative action

A
  • greater levels of diversity
  • rights previous wrongs
  • opens up areas of education and employment which minorities otherwise would not have considered
  • better learning environment in which racial tolerance is promoted
  • most meaningful and effective means thus far devised by government for delivering the promise of equal opportunity.
  • It works -between 1969 and 1995 percentage of black people aged 25-29 who graduated from university rose from 5% to 15%
59
Q

arguments against affirmative action

A
  • advantage for one group leads to disadvantage to another
  • minorities can be admitted to courses with which they are ill-equipped to cope (2004 Stanford Law Review Richard Sander found that putting black students into classes with white students with higher SAT scores and college grades resulted in ‘close to half of black students ending up in the bottom 10th of their class’
  • condescending to minorities
  • perpetuates a society based on colour and race
  • quota system under another name
  • focuses on groups rather than individuals
60
Q

what did Justice Harry Blackmun say in 1978 should be the measure of legitimacy of affirmative action programmes?

A

how fast they moved society towards a time when they would no longer be needed and a society on which race would no longer matter

61
Q

what is public perception of affirmative action?

A

the majority of people said they were a good thing when given a specific purpose. (63% in favour of them to overcome past discrimination and 60% said they were a good thing to increase the number of black and minority students on college campuses) however the percentage who saw them as fair was less (47% saw them as fair 42% as unfair) and if preferential treatment is mentioned only 24% agreed and 74% disagreed.

62
Q

what percentage of African-Americans say they had been helped/hurt by these programmes

A
  • 4% helped
  • 8% hurt
  • 87% no effect
63
Q

arguments for affirmative action being good for america?

A

-helped reverse decades of discrimination and righted previous wrongs
-given black American community hope
-increasing evidence of minority students at top universities
-helped promote community diversity
helped promoted equality of opportunity and equality of outcome

64
Q

arguments for affirmative action not having been good for American?

A
  • divided the black community rather than empowered it
  • programme based on race like racism it sought to end
  • led to come resentments and inequalities for the majority community
  • lowers aspirations by offering racial preferences
  • puts minority students into academic places where they struggle to compete and succeed
65
Q

what was the Voting Rights Act 1965?

A

legislation which ended literacy and other tests as requirements for voter legislation

66
Q

when was the voting rights act re-authorised and what was the controversial part?

A

In 2006 with support from the President, Congress re-authorised the Voting Rights Acts key provisions for another 25 years, including the controversial Section 4 which included the preclearance formula used to determine which states and localities must have major changes in their voting laws at federal level.

67
Q

In what case did the Supreme court strike down the preclearance formula as unconstitutional and what effects did this have?

A

Shelby County v Holder (2013)
immediate consequences - within days Texas announced that a voter identification laws that had been blocked would go into immediate effect and the states redistricting maps would no longer need federal approval.

68
Q

by how much has turnout among black voters increased in the last 40 years?

A

In 1980 only 50% of eligible black voters went to the polls compared with 61% of white voters. By 2012, 62% of eligible black voters cast their ballot compared with less than 58% of white voters

69
Q

what are worrying developments that disproportionately affect black voters?

A
  • 9 states had introduced a photo ID requirement for all voters in the run up to the 2016 elections including 6 with high proportions of black voters
  • By 2016, the Brennan centre for Justice estimated that 6 million Americans had lost their right to vote because of previous criminal convictions. The centre also estimated that 1/13 of voting age African-Americans had lost their right to vote due to past convictions, the rate being 4 times higher than for all other Americans
  • Research conducted by the Sentencing Project showed that felony disenfranchisement among the black community has risen sharply since 1980. In 1980 just two states had disenfranchised more than 10% of black voters but by 2016, 8 states had done this and four states had disenfranchised over 20% (Kentucky topped the list at 26.1% but the felony disenfranchisement for all adult Kentuckians was just 9%
70
Q

how has the percentage of foreign born people in the us changed over the years?

A

sharp increase at the end of the 20th century, rate of increase decreased at beginning of this century

71
Q

how many illegal immigrants to the us are Mexicans?

A

over 50% (64% in 2013, 51% in 2014, 58% in 2015)

72
Q

what are examples of pressure groups having a role of protection of rights in the us?

A
  • In 1997 the ACLU brought a case against Attorney General Reno that resulted in the Supreme Court striking down the 1996 Communications Decency Act because of its broad banning of indecent material on the internet
  • In 1954 it was legal defence and education fund of the NAACP that brought the Brown v Board of Education of Topeka to court
73
Q

how many members of congress are currently racial or ethnic minorities, and how much of an increase is this from the 107th congress (2001-2003)?

A

About a quarter of voting members (23%), or 124 members, of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate are racial or ethnic minorities, making the 117th Congress the most racially and ethnically diverse in history.

This represents a 97% increase over the 107th Congress of 2001-03, which had 63 minority members.

74
Q

how many African Americans did Biden have in his original cabinet?

A

2:
Marcia Fudge - secretary of HUD
Lloyd Austin - secretary of defence

75
Q

how many states use the death penalty?

A

27

76
Q

in what case did the Court strike down three provisions of an arizona immigration law because they encroached on areas of congressional authority to regulate immigration and what does this show?

A

United States v Arizona (2012)

showed the Court can protect as well as limit the powers of congress

77
Q

what does stare decisis mean?

A

to stand by things decided - legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar case

A Level Politics (20 decks)

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