AP Gov Unit 5C

amicus curiae briefs

Amicus curiae briefs are legal briefs submitted by a "friend of the court" for the purpose of raising additional points of view and presenting information not contained in the briefs of the formal parties. These briefs attempt to change the court's decisions. It can be filed by an individual or an organization.

appellee/appellant

Appellate jurisdiction is the jurisdiction of a superior court to hear appeals of rulings which have already been tried in inferior courts. An appellant is a person who applies to a higher court for a reversal of the decision of a lower court. An appellee is the respondent in a case appealed to a higher court.

appellate jurisdiction

Appellate jurisdictions are the jurisdiction of a superior court to hear appeals of rulings which have already been tried in inferior courts. The U.S. circuit court holds appellate jurisdiction in most federal cases. The Supreme Court cases are also appellate jurisdictions in most cases.

justiciable

Being justiciable is a requirement that to be heard a case must be capable of being settled as matter of law rather than on other grounds as is commonly the case in legislative decisions. Justiciable dispute is a constraint on the courts requiring that a case be capable of being settled by legal methods.

Federal District court

Both civil and criminal cases are filed in the district court, which is a court of law, equity, and admiralty. The US district court is the principal trial court in the federal system. It holds original jurisdiction in most federal cases and consists of 94 courts divided geographically. It hears both criminal and civil cases involving federal laws.

What control does Congress have over the judiciary

Congress has the power to approve or deny appointed judges. Congress has impeachment power over federal officials. Congress may propose amendments or legislation that overturn Supreme Court decisions.

equal justice under the law

Equal justice under the law means that all who appear in court in the United States must be treated as equals, it's the goal of the legal system.

Explain how federalism is exemplified in the U.S. judicial system

In the U.S. judicial system, federalism is exemplified through the dual court system. In the judiciary, there are two court systems: state and federal. They exist and operate at the same time in the same geographic areas. Federalism is the separation of government between the state and federal governments. Federalism in the judiciary is the division of power between the state and federal courts which work at the same time and both lead into the Supreme Court as the "court of last resort."

adversarial system

In the adversarial system, the parties to a controversy develop and present their arguments, gather and submit evidence, call and question witnesses, and, within the confines of certain rules, control the process. It's where two advocates represent their parties' case or position before an impartial person or group of people, usually a jury or judge, who attempt to determine the truth and pass judgement accordingly. We use an adversarial system in the United States.

judicial activism

Judicial activism is a theory that judges should interpret law loosely, using their powers to promote their preferred political and social goals. Judges are said to be activists when they are likely to interject their own values in court decisions.

judicial restraint

Judicial restraint is where legislators, not judges, should make the laws. Judges are said to exercise judicial restraint when they rule closely to statutes and previous cases when reaching their decisions. This was the "original intent" of the framers.

loose construction

Loose construction is broad interpretation of the Constitution. It's based on the implied powers of Article I Clause 18 of the Constitution. It believes that the Constitution should be interpreted in light of changing conditions.

Marbury v. Madison

Marbury v. Madison is the case that established the doctrine of judicial review. It took place in 1803 but was not used again until the Dred Scott decision in 1857.

oral arguments

Oral arguments are a step in the process of a Supreme Court case where one attorney (who may be assisted by a team that cannot speak) presents his or her argument about a specific case in front of the justices for thirty minutes and is required to respond to all of their questions.

original jurisdiction

Original jurisdiction is the authority to decide cases for the first time based on testimony and evidence: holding Hearings or Trials. District courts hold original jurisdiction, but the Supreme Court occasionally has original jurisdiction in cases of treason or other constitutional crimes.

What is the difference between original and appellate jurisdiction

Original jurisdiction is the authority to decide cases for the first time based on testimony and evidence: holding Hearings or Trials. District courts hold original jurisdiction, but the Supreme Court occasionally has original jurisdiction in cases of treason or other constitutional crimes. Appellate jurisdictions are the jurisdiction of a superior court to hear appeals of rulings which have already been tried in inferior courts. The U.S. circuit court holds appellate jurisdiction in most federal cases. The Supreme Court cases are also appellate jurisdictions in most cases. Appellate jurisdiction always occurs after original jurisdiction.

Describe how politics might enter into Supreme Court decisions

Politics might enter into Supreme Court decisions at multiple times along the judicial process. First, in the nomination process, politics enter into the Supreme Court because the president will appoint justices based on the political state of the nation. Then, politics enter the nature of the cases that are asked to be divided in the Supreme Court. Then, depending on the political atmosphere and what needs to be addressed in the current time, politics enter into the Supreme Court. Then politics influence the oral arguments and questions asked during the trial. And finally, politics play some role in the decision of the case.

standing

Standing is a legal rule stating who is authorized to start a lawsuit. It's important in determining who can challenge the laws or actions of the government. Standing to sue is the requirement that plaintiffs have a serious interest in a case, which depends on whether they have sustained or are likely to sustain a direct and substantial injury from a party or an action of government.

What is the difference between statutory and constitutional law

Statutory law is law that comes from authoritative and specific lawmaking sources, primarily legislatures but also including treaties and executive orders. Constitutional law are statements interpreting the Constitution that have been given Supreme Court approval. The Supreme Court deals with constitutional law, not statutory law. Other courts deal with statutory and not constitutional law.

strict construction

Strict construction is an approach to judicial review which holds that judges should confine themselves to applying those rules that are clearly stated in or clearly implied by the language of the Constitution.

concurring opinion

A concurring opinion is an opinion of a justice who agrees with the outcome/result of the majority opinion but may have applied different reasoning or had a specific perspective they wished to be preserved to the record. In other words, it's a written opinion by one or more judges of a court which agrees with the decision made by the majority of the court, but states different (or additional) reasons as the basis for his or her decision.

dissenting opinion

A dissenting opinion is an opinion in a legal case written by one or more judges expressing disagreement with the majority opinion of the court which gives rise to its judgment.

petition

A petition is a formal written request, typically one signed by many people, appealing to authority with respect to a particular cause. A petition for certiorari is a petition asking the Supreme Court to hear a case. A petitioner is, in equality practice, a party that initiated a lawsuit.

unanimous opinion

A unanimous opinion is when all members of a court agree on the decision of a case.

writ of certiorari

A writ of certiorari is issued when the Supreme Court is deciding if they are going to accept a case. The writ of certiorari is acceptance of a case, issued when four of nine justices want to take it ("rule of four").

Why could it be said that all judicial decisions are in some way activist

Activist decisions are based on the theory of judicial activism, which is a theory that judges should interpret law loosely, using their powers to promote their preferred political and social goals. Judges are said to be activists when they are likely to interject their own values in court decisions. It could be said that in some way all judicial decisions are activist because judges all have values that may indirectly or unconsciously influence their decisions. Since the judges are human beings, have certain political socializations, demographics, political ideologies, and beliefs, they each have a different way of looking at things. No matter how impartial they try to be, inner beliefs are hard to change. For example, an immigrant may be more sympathetic to cases involving other foreign born citizens because of his or her experiences.

judicial confirmation

The Constitution requires nominations to be confirmed by the Senate. The confirmation process begins when the President selects a nominee for a vacant judgeship. Traditionally, the President selects a nominee in consultation with the Senators who represent the state in which the judge will serve. The President then refers the nominee to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee evaluates the nominee by gathering information, running a background check, and reviewing the record and qualifications of the nominee. The Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on the nominee. Witnesses present testimony on the nominee. Some of the witnesses favor and others oppose the nomination. The nominee also answers questions from the Committee. Senators who oppose a nominee can attempt to delay or derail a nomination by requesting additional information or additional time as a hearing approaches. The Judiciary Committee votes on whether to report the nominee to the full Senate. If the Committee does report the nominee, they can submit the nomination with a favorable recommendation, an unfavorable recommendation, or no recommendation at all. Then the full Senate has a man opportunity to debate the selection. The Senate debates until a Senator asks for unanimous consent to end debate and move to a vote on the nominee. If unanimous consent is granted, the Senate votes on the nominee, with a majority vote required for confirmation. Any Senator can refuse to grant unanimous consent. This situation is known as a hold. If any Senator objects to unanimous consent, then a cloture motion must be filed in order to end debate and move to a vote. Cloture motions for judicial and executive nominations require 51 votes to pass. Once the Senate holds a confirmation vote, with a majority voting to confirm, the nominee becomes a Federal Judge.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the country, sometimes called the "Court of Last Resort." It is the only court empowered to interpret the Constitution with the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court consists of the Chief Justice and eight associate justices. Most, but not all, or the cases they hear are appellate cases, but some can be original in cases of treason or other constitutional crimes. The court will issue a "writ of certiorari (acceptance of the case) if four or more of the judges want to hear it. This is called the "rule of four." Or the court will issue a certificate if a lower court says they don't know how to decide on it. It's the only court that can select the cases it wants to hear. It doesn't function like common courts. No evidence is presented, no witnesses are questioned. Rather, one attorney for each side presents his oral argument for 30 minutes while being questioned by the justices. Once these are over, justices write their opinions on the case or chooses an opinion to sign his or her name to.

judicial review

The Supreme Court is the only court with the power of judicial review. Judicial review is the doctrine under which legislative and executive actions are subject to review and possible invalidation by the courts. Judicial review is an the Court's main check on the other branches.

U.S. Solicitor General

The United States Solicitor General is the third-highest-ranking official in the U.S. Department of Justice.The United States Solicitor General is the person appointed to represent the federal government of the United States before the Supreme Court of the United States. The Solicitor General determines the legal position that the United States will take in the Supreme Court. He is a presidential appointee in charge of the appellate court of the federal government.

What circumstances are required for a case to be brought before the Supreme Court

The case must be tried in a federal district or state court (and appellate courts) before it reaches the Supreme Court. The case must be submitted to and accepted by the Supreme Court, which can be a rare thing, since the Supreme Court receives so many requests. The court will issue a "writ of certiorari (acceptance of the case) if four or more of the judges want to hear it. This is called the "rule of four." Or the court will issue a certificate if a lower court says they don't know how to decide on it. It's the only court that can select the cases it wants to hear. Or, in cases where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, a case can be brought directly to the Supreme Court. For example, in cases of treason.

due process of law

The due process of law is a constitutional requirement for fundamental fairness in the United States legal and court system.

What powers does the judicial branch have over the legislative and executive branches

The judicial branch can check the legislative branch by declaring a law unconstitutional. The judicial branch can check the executive branch because Supreme Court justices cannot be fired by the president and can rule that a president's action or law is unconstitutional.

majority opinion

The majority opinion is the final decision of the court, signed by at least a majority of the court. It becomes precedent for how future similar cases will be decided. A precedent is a legal principle, created by a court decision, which provides an example or authority for judges deciding similar issues later.

judicial nomination

The president is responsible for the judicial nominations to the Supreme Court submitted to the Senate. The Constitution provides broad parameters for the judicial nomination process. It gives the responsibility for nominating federal judges and justices to the president. More than 600 judges sit on district courts, almost 200 sit on courts of appeals, and 9 justices make up the Supreme Court. But, since all federal judges have life terms, no single president appoints all of these judges. A president relies on many sources to recommend appropriate nominees for judicial posts. Recommendations often come from the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, members of Congress, sitting judges and justices, and the American Bar Association. Some judicial hopefuls even nominate themselves. A special, very powerful tradition for recommending district judges is called senatorial courtesy. According to this practice, the senators from the state in which the vacancy occurs actually make the decision. A senator of the same political party as the President sends a nomination to the president, who almost always follows the recommendation. To ignore it would be a great affront to the senator, as well as an invitation for conflict between the president and the Senate. Because federal judges and Supreme Court justices serve for life, a president's nomination decisions are in many ways his or her most important legacy. Many of these appointments will serve long after a president's term of office ends. Experience, party and personal loyalty, political ideology, and ethnicity and gender all go into the decision making process.

Why can it be said that a president's strongest legacy is found in the judiciary

The president's power over the judiciary is in appointing judges (who later have to be confirmed by the Senate). These judges serve life sentences on the Court, remaining in office after the president who appointed him/her's term has ended. So, when a president leaves office, their only legacy, or their biggest legacy, is the judges they leave behind. These judges continue to decide cases and influence social attitudes long afterward. So, it can be said that a president's strongest legacy is found in the judiciary.

Federal Circuit Courts

They are part of the federal court system. There's one for DC and twelve for the rest of the country. Their job is to review older court decisions and make appellate jurisdictions. They're also called "court of appeals." They hear appeals from district courts and from many decisions of federal administrative agencies. The cases are usually heard by three judges.

How are changes in society reflected in Supreme Court decisions

Though the Constitution doesn't change (with the exception of added amendments), the way that we view the Constitution changes over time. These changes in view reflect actual changes in society. These changes can be seen in Supreme Court decisions, and especially when cases are overturned. For example, in the Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson, a decision that a man who was ⅛ black was forced to sit at the back of the bus. This reflected the view in society that black people were inferior. The idea of "separate but equal" was cited. Later, in the Supreme Court, the decision in Brown v. Board of Education overturned the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson. This Supreme Court said that "separate but equal is inherently unequal." This case showed the change in society's perspective to accept people of different races as equals.