AP GOVERNMENT CHAPTER 15

15.2

15.2 Structure of the Federal Courts The Constitution only includes a mention of a U.S. Supreme Court, no state courts, no appeals court, no other federal judges. It doesn't even mention the number of judges required for any of the courts. Congress has established the Federal Supreme Court to have 9 justices. The judiciary act of 1789 established most of the courts we still have today 98% of court cases deal with state and local laws. Only 25% of all cases involve federal law. Courts are either of "original jurisdiction" or of "appellate". Original jurisdiction means it it is the first time the case has been heard and the facts are presented to a judge, group of judge, or a jury. It's decisions based upon the facts of the case. An appellate court is heard by a judge or judges only who have knowledge of the law and the courtroom to decide whether a case hard in an original jurisdiction court was done fairly. It's decision is based upon the legal issues of the first case. It's either reversed,sustained, or new trial. See figure 15.1 (page 512). There are three types of original jurisdiction courts (91 District Courts, Independent Regulatory Commission Courts, and legislative courts for military, taxes,international trade,etc) and 3 types of appellate courts (12 circuit courts of appeals and court of appeals for the federal circuit and final authority, the U.S. Supreme Court) Anyone can appeal at any time except for the prosecution losing a criminal case. ( double jeopardy) Types of Federal Courts District Courts : (91) They are original jurisdiction courts who are the only ones to have juries to decide the case. All losers in district court have the right to appeal the decision. Court of Appeals (13): There are 12 circuit courts of appeals throughout the U.S. and one to hear cases in Washington DC to hear cases of specialized subjects. Each court has between 6 to 28 permanent judges who rotate so that at least three hear a case at one time. They do not hear new evidence of facts but rather listen to both sides lawyers decide if there was a mistake in the original court room- they can overturn,affirm, or sent it back for retrial. US Supreme Court (1): The final authority (the court of the last resort). It has nine justices (8 associates and 1 Chief Justice) They decide which types of cases they are going to hear (aka rule of 4 if four of the 9 want to hear it it gets heard) which gives them much say and power. From about 20,000 cases originally appealed they will hear about 100 in one year. They are also an original jurisdiction court for EXTREMELY SPECIALIZED EVENTS,such as a case involving a foreign diplomat or involving two states or one state and its citizens. See table 15.1 ( one original,71 federal cases,and 10 state cases) see figure 15.3 page 515 Every case wishing to be appealed is heard EXCEPT at the U.S. Supreme Court Level. That gives them unbelievable power that they get to pick

15.5

15.5 The Basis of their decision When deciding a case there are various concepts which are important to the court. One of the most important is "stare decisis" which means let the decision stand- an earlier decision holds true in this case and they will rule the same exact way- this is also known as the rule of the precedent. All lower courts must follow any rulings of higher courts. However, the SC is the only court allowed to change its past rulings and overrule its own precedents,as it did when Brown V. Board of Education. Overturned their decision of Plessy V. Ferguson. Every court must follow the rules made of the higher courts. Other factors considered are especially when there is no precedent set in the past or former case to look at, they rely on Original intent theory: what did the original writers of the law mean they wrote it Original Meaning theory: what did the people interpret the law to mean when it was written. 15.5 Court Decision Implementation The decision if each and every case is read formally in open court, with media coverage,websites,and publication in every law library in the U.S. However, the problematic the SC decision is getting the decision implementation everyday life. The decision is a remand to the lower court,yet, how does the court get lawmakers and enforces the laws the change . Judicial implementation, that is how and when court decisions are actually translated into policy and enforced by all the government branches, is a huge problem.

15.6

15.6 Historical Review of the Supreme Court Over the years, the SC has interpreted many federal laws of the U.S.-- it has decided many controversial topics,government interference,interstate vs. intrastate commerce, slavery,equal rights,civil rights,abortion,medical questions,death penalty and assisted suicide,and now same sex marriage. It is divided Pre Civil War (1789-1880) - John Marshall's court: most cases dealt with the new government and its powers - cases are Marbury v. Madison ,where judicial review was first established, and defining interstate transactions and the federal government Post Civil War and Pre New Deal (1880-1937): Charles Evans Hughes' Court completely opposed many of FDR new deal plans for economies recovery. These men voted against ALL of FDR's plans so much that FDR called them Nine Angry Old Men (all over 70) and sent a bill before congress to increase the amount of justices. Eventually, Hughes changed his mind on many of the New Deal Policies and convinced others to vote his way. Post New Deal and Pre Civil Rights: Earl Warren's Court dealt with many cases involving civil rights and the treatment of blacks especially in the south, most famous case was Brown vs. Board of Education which reversed the Plessy v. Ferguson case. Post civil rights to the present: Warren Burger, William Rehnquist, and John Roberts courts mostly dealt with medical questions and when does life begin and end and same sex rights. Burger court ruled against president Nixon and ordered him to turn over his secret taped messages to the court which forced him to resign. In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court ultimately settled who won the presidential election based upon what type of votes counted and which didn't count in the state of Florida.

15.7

15.7 understanding the courts In a strong democratic society, where the president and congress are elected through majority vote. It is very important to have a group, the SC, who are isolated from elections, public opinion, and direct input from interest groups, to protect minority rights and make decisions for the good of all people, not just the wealthy and powerful. Although not directly influenced by interest groups in their decision, the SC is more likely to hear a case that impacts many groups. 15.7 Judicial Power Overall the SC acts for the best interests of the U.S. By showing either Judicial Restraint: only making decisions which completely change federal law a small percentage of the time, example: allowing the president and congress to have more say Judicial activism: making decisions which completely change federal law a large percentage of the time. Example: forcing the president to have less say Political Questions: the SC tries not to get involved in the power struggle between congress and the president as that is seen as an advantage to our democracy and part of normal politics. For example, they still have never ruled on the war powers resolution's act, which many people believe is unconstitutional

Homework #1

9. Which of the following is true about the norm of senatorial courtesy for district court nominees? B. The senate invokes this courtesy if a nominee is opposed by a senator of the president's party from the state in which the nominee is to serve. 10. Summarize the different criteria that have been used for selecting judges and justices to the federal courts. What is the primary criterion used to select judges and justices? How has the relative importance of the criteria changed as politics has become more partisan? In your opinion, on what basis should federal judges and justices be selected and why? What criteria do you think should not be the basis for judicial selection? Explain your answer. The different criteria for selecting judges and justices to the federal courts involves partisanship which is when the judges or justices had experience that gave them visibility and helped them obtain the positions from which they moved to the courts. Another part of criteria is ideology which is just as important as partisanship in the selection of judges and justices. Older forms of criteria used were geography and religion. The primary criterion for selecting judges and justices is partisanship. The importance of the criteria has changed as politics have become more partisan by the fact that presidents want more than just Justice they want policies with which they agree. I think the basis on which justices should be appointed is whether or not they will make the right decisions for our country and not just to be in favor of others or the president. I think experience,background, and how many years served should be the criteria for judicial selection instead of ideology and partisanship. 11. All EXCEPT which of the following are true of the backgrounds of federal judges? B. They typically have been from the appointing president's region of the country. 12. The decision of congress to create new judgeships is related strongly to whether the majority party in congress is the same as the party of the president. TRUE 13. Why is it difficult to predict the future policy decisions of federal judges and Supreme Court justices? Based on your understanding of the role the courts play in our system of checks and balances, how might this actually be good for American democracy? Do you think that the system should be changed to make judicial behavior more predictable? Explain. It is difficult to predict the future policy decisions of federal judges and Supreme Court justices because many precedents are set to follow when dealing with the cases that can be pushed aside by judges, the original intent theory, the original meaning theory,or overruling an earlier case. I personally believe that it could be good for American democracy because this allows decisions to go along with the rapidly changing world and ideals. I also belive that the system should not be changed because if cases were more predictable then every case would have the same outcome and that is not beneficial to the people involved in the case. 14. Under which of the following scenarios is the court most likely to decide to accept a case? D. When the Solicitor Generals Office decides to appeal a case the government has lost in lower court. 15. At least six justices must participate in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. TRUE 16. Most cases reaching appelate courts are settled on the principle of stare decisis. TRUE

Judicial restraint

An approach to decision making in which judges play minimal policymaking roles and defer to legislatures whenever possible

Judicial activism

An approach to decision making in which judges sometimes make bold policy decisions even charting new constitutional ground

15.6 Outline

Brittany Gassman Mr. Anhalt AP US Government and Politics, Period 3 13 April 2016 I. The Courts and Public Policy: A Historical Review A. Like all policymakers, the courts are choice makers. The choices that the judges and justices make affect us all. Confronted with controversial policies, they make plenty of controversial decisions that leave winners and losers. 1. For example, the courts have made policy about slavery, segregation, corporate power, capital punishment, and dozens others. II. John Marshall and the Growth of Judicial Review A. Marbury v. Madison 1. The 1803 case in which Chief Justice John Marshall and his associates first asserted the right of the Supreme Court to determine the meaning of the US Constitution. a) This decision established the court's power of judicial review over the acts of congress. (The Judiciary Act of 1789) III. The "Nine Old Men" A. Never was the court as controversial as during the New Deal. 1. National Industrial Recovery Act one of a string of antidepression recovery acts. a) Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States: declared it unconstitutional because it regulated purely local business that did not affect interstate commerce. IV. The Warren Court A. The era in which the segregation of public schools was unconstitutional. Later, it expanded the rights of criminal defendants and selfincrimination. V. The Burger Court A. The era in which defendants' rights were narrowed, but did not overturn the decision of ​ M iranda's case.​ One of the most notable decisions of the Burger court weighed against Burger's appointer, Richard Nixon. At the height of the Watergate scandal, the Supreme Court was called on to decide whether Nixon had to turn his White House tapes over to the courts. It unanimously ordered him to do so in ​ U nited States v. Nixon​ , thus hastening his resignation. VI. The Rehnquist and Roberts Courts A. Bush v. Gore 1. This decision decided the 2000 Presidential Election and represents a high point of judicial activism.

15.7 Outline

Chapter 15.7: Understanding the Courts The Courts and Democracy In some ways, the courts are not a very democratic institution. Federal judges are not elected and are impossible to remove. Indeed, their social background probably make the courts the most elite-dominated policymaking institution. The courts are not entirely independent of popular preferences; political scientists have found that the Court usually reflects popular majorities, and even when it seems out of step with other policymakers, it eventually swings around to join the party consensus, as it did in New Deal. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court sits in a "marble place", it is not as insulated from the normal forms of politics as one might think. Members of the Supreme Court are unlikely to cave in to interest group pressures, but they are aware of the public's concerns about issues, and this awareness becomes part of their consciousness as they decide cases. Political scientists have found that the Court is most likely to hear cases for which interest groups have filed amicus curiae briefs. The Scope of Judicial Power There are strong disagreements about the appropriateness of the courts playing a prominent policymaking role. Many scholars and judges favor a policy of judicial restraint, in which judges adhere closely to precedent and play minimal policymaking roles, deferring to legislatures by upholding laws whenever possible. On the other side are proponents of judicial activity, in which judges are less deferential to elected officials and sometimes make bold policy decisions, even charting new constitutional ground. The federal courts have developed a doctrine of political questions as a means of avoiding deciding some cases, principally those that involve conflicts between the president and Congress. In a similar way, judges typically attempt, whenever possible, to avoid deciding a case on the basis of the Constitution, preferring less contentious "technical" grounds and have employed issues of jurisdiction, mootness (whether a case presents a real controversy in which a judicial decision can have practical effect), standing, ripeness (whether the issues of a case are clear enough and evolved enough to serve as the basis of a decision), and other conditions to avoid adjudication of some politically charged cases. As seen in the discussion of Marbury v. Madison, from the earlier days of the Republic, federal judges have been politically astute in their efforts to maintain the legitimacy of the judiciary and to conserve their resources. Another factor that increases the acceptability of activist courts is the ability to overturn their decisions. First, the president and the Senate determine who sits on the federal bench. Second, Congress, with or without the president's urging, can begin the process of amending the Constitution to overcome a decision of the Supreme Court. Although this process does not occur rapidly, it is a safety valve. Finally, if the issue is one of statutory construction, in which a court interprets an act of Congress, then the legislation routinely passes legislation that clarifies existing laws and, in effect, overturns the court.

Plaintiff

Civil case Someone suing someone else vs person accusing someone of a crime in a criminal case ( always needs to be the government) Some plaintiffs are allowed to have a class action suit

Current US Supreme Court Justices

Clarence Thomas Anthony Kennedy John G Roberts Ruth Bader Ginsburg Sonia Sotomayor Stephen G. Breyer Samuel Alito Elena Kagan

The structure of the federal judicial system

Courts of original jurisdiction are the first courts to hear a case, usually when it goes to trial. The court assesses and decides a case based on the facts of the car, and most cases do not continue after their first ruling. There are 94 federal district courts, which have original jurisdiction and hold trials in which the litigants appear before the court Federal district courts primarily handle cases violating federal law or involving federal civil law, civil suits in which the litigants are of different states,bankruptcy proceedings,and possess of naturalization The U.S. Attorney in each district serves as the government's lawyer The federal government is a plaintiff when prosecuting violators of federal laws, the government can be a plaintiff or defendant in a civil suit. Courts of appellate jurisdiction hear cases that have been appealed. The court interprets the case as it relates to the law, it does not review the facts and the litigants do not appear before the court ( only their lawyers appear) and there is no jury Thirteen circuit courts of appeal review cars appealed from the district courts;they have appellate jurisdiction They do not focus in the facts of the case, but evaluate the treatment of the case in the district court in terms of errors of procedure or the law Usually three judges hear a cases and their ruling sets a precedent for the district courts within their geographic circuit The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on the law. It has original jurisdiction in cases between two states, the federal government and a state, or a state and a foreign country, but most cases fall under its appellate jurisdiction It can choose which cases to hear and it consists of nine justices who rule on cases together

The Nature of the Judicial System

Criminal Law is used when a person has violated a law. Civil law is used when to settle disputes between private parties Only about three percent of all cases actually go to trial ; most are settled out of court Litigants are the parties involved in the case The plaintiff brings the charges ( the plaintiffs name is listed in the name of the case). And in matters of criminal law, the government is the plaintiff, The defendant is the party who has been charged, (this name is listed second) Plaintiffs must have a standing to sue, or sufficient legal reason to bring charges. Plaintiffs in a class action suit sue on behalf of all citizens who are in the same situation. Interest groups become involved with court cases to influence decisions about the law,and they may have their lawyers take up an appropriate litigants case. They often submit amicus curiae briefs to influence a judges decision in cases where the group is not itself a litigant,which often explain the possible effects of the judges decision, bring new points of view to the case, or provide additional information not presented in the case. Attorneys present a case in court, and every citizen is guaranteed a lawyer in a criminal case. Public interest lawyers and legal aid groups may represent poor people in some civil and criminal cases. State and local governments hire public defenders to represent poor defendants in criminal cases.

Prosecution

Criminal case Person accusing someone of a crime ( always needs to be the government

3. Federal district courts are the only federal courts in which

D.juries are impaneled to decide cases

15.7 Understanding the courts

Judges and justices are not elected and are difficult to remove but they are not completely insulated from politics and often have acted to promote openness in the political system. They also have a number of tools for avoiding making controversial decisions,which they often employ, and there are a number of means more democratically selected officials can use to overturn court decisions

15.6 The Courts and Public Policy: A Historical Review

Since its astute first overturning of a congressional statue in Marbury v. Madison, the court has exercised judicial review to play a key role in many of the major policy battles in American history. Until the civil war, the dominant questions before the court concerned slavery and the strengthNan's legitimacy of the federal government, with the latter questions resolved in favor of the supremacy of the federal government. From the civil war until 1937, questions of the relationship between the federal government and the economy predominated, with the court restricting the government's power to regulate the economy. From 1938 until the present the paramount issues before the court have concerned personal liberty and social and political equality. In this era, the court had enlarged the scope of personal freedom and civil rights and has removed many Of the constitutional restraints on the regulation of economy. In recent years, the court has been less aggressive in protecting civil rights for minorities but has constrained the federal government's power over the states.

The courts and public policy: a historical view

Some courts (usually referred to by the name of the Chief Justice at the time) have had a significant impact on the shaping of policy. John Marshall initiated the practice of judicial review in the case of Marbury v. Madison and expanded the power of the Supreme Court significantly. The warren court became actively involved in expanding civil rights and civil liberties The burger court became somewhat more conservative than the warren court though it still allowed abortion in roe v wade The Rehnquist and Roberts courts became even more Conservative with mainly republican presidents appointments and began to limit though not reverse previous rulings. Some critics think the Supreme Court is too powerful and favor judicial restraint Others favor judicial activism to allow justices the freedom to forge new policies especially concerning people largely underrepresented in the political process Power of the courts is checked by the president's appointments and also by congresses ability to amend the constitution,despite or in order to overrule a Supreme Court decision

The Courts as Policymakers

The Supreme Court shapes policy by selecting which case to hear It is most likely to choose cases involving civil rights and civil liberties, a discrepancy in the lower courts interpretation of the law or disagreements between justices and the lower courts. The Supreme Court follows a regular process for making decisions Justices read briefs pertaining to the case, hear oral arguments, meet to discuss cases,vote on the decision, and write and announce opinions Opinions that have the support of the majority, called opinions of the courts establish law that is binding on lower courts. Decisions are based heavily on precedent, lower courts must follow precedents set by higher courts. Justices usually rule stare decisis, let the decision stand Decisions must be translated into policy which is accomplished by policy makers the president,lower courts, lawyers, and administrators The public must become aware of its rights under the new decision Often implemented disagree with the decision and try to hinder implementation

15.3 The President of Judicial Selection

The president nominates and the senate confirms judges and justices. Senators from the relevant state play an important role in the selection of district court judges, as a result of senatorial courtesy,while the White House has more discretion with appellate judges and,especially, Supreme Court justices. Although the senate confirms most judicial nominations, it has rejected or refused to act on many in recent years. Especially for positions in the higher courts

15.1 The nature of the judicial system

The vast majority of cases are tried in state,not federal, courts. Courts can only hear "cases" or "controversies" between plaintiffs and defendants. Plaintiffs must have standing to sue, and judges can only decide justiciable disputes. Attorneys also play a central role in the judicial system. Interest groups sometimes promote litigation and often file amicus curiae briefs in cases brought by others

All losers have the right to

Appeal the decision except for the losing prosecution in a criminal case

Court of Appeals

13 There are 12 circuit courts of appeals throughout the U.S. Band 1 to hear cases in Washington DC to hear cases of specialized subjects 6 to 28 permanent judges who rotate so 3 hear a case at one time. They do not hear new evidence but they listen to both sides They can overturn, affirm, or send it back to retrial

State appeals + Federal Court of Appeals

400. 8,000 cases. 7600 | Supreme Court Rule of Four-----> no (lower court stands) Step 1-3 7,900. 6-8 months If it's yes it gets a writ of certiorari Then it goes to hearing 1 hours trial (step2) 30 minutes each trial No new evidence,five six cases a day Assign opinion Final vote --> majority opinion\ dissenting opinion 6-8 weeks hearing announcements Step 3- public announcement "law"

Federal Judges (US Supreme Court to the 91 district court)

Are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate and serve for life

The Supreme Court gets unbelievable power

Because they choose what they want to hear

The supreme courts decision making process

Cases on docket Briefs submitted by both sides, amicus curiae,briefs filed Oral argument Conference; cases discussed,votes taken,opinion writing assigned Opinions drafted,circulated for comment Decision announced

Current Supreme Court Justices

Clarence Thomas,John G.Roberts (Chief Justice) Anthony M Kennedy,Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor,Stephen G. Breyer,Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan

Beyond a reasonable doubt

Criminal All of the evidence 12/0

Types of federal courts

District courts,Courts of Appeals,U.S. supreme court

Supreme Court today

Diverse Chosen by partisan Ideology (beliefs match the president) Very difficukt

Obtaining Space in a Supreme Court Docket

Federal Courts/State Courts Requests for Supreme Court Review (approximately 8,000 cases) Then appeals discussed in conference--> appeals denied (99% of cases) Obtains four votes Placed on the docket (fewer than 100 cases)

The rule of four

Four out of nine of the Supreme Court justices have to agree to listen to a case for it to be heard

Appellate

Heard by a judge or judges who only have knowledge of the law and the court room to decide whether a case heard in an original jurisdiction court was done fairly

Precedent

How similar cases have been decided in the past

The only way a Supreme Court justice can be removed is by

Impeachment

Every case that is wishing to be appealed

Is heard except at the U.S. Supreme court

Original Jurisdiction

Is the first time a case has been heard and the facts are presented to a judge,group of judges,or a jury

Justiciable disputes

Issues capable of being settled as a matter of law

Most state and local judges are elected by

It's citizen and serve for an extended period of time

15.3 Outline

Isaura Sanguinetti AP Amer Gov't 15.3 Outline 4/3/16 15.3 The Politics of Judicial Selection 1) The federal judges and Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president. The Senate confirms every nomination. Congress has never removed a justice, however, only seven justices were close to being convicted of impeachment in the last two centuries. A) The Lower Courts 1) Senatorial courtesy an unwritten tradition used by the Senate when considering nominees: a) District court positions: Senate does not confirm nominee if opposed by a senator from the state that the nominee wishes to serve in and is from the president's party. b) Courts of appeals positions: Senate does not confirm nominee if opposed by a senator from the state that the nominee resides in and is from the president's party. 2) The senator must have a valid reason to oppose confirmation. The other senators will usually agree with the opposer and deny the nominee. a) Presidents are careful to choose nominees that will impress the more important senators to avoid denial by the Senate. 3) If the the relevant senators are not from the president's party, than other nominees are suggested or an attempt to influence selection is made by the Senate. a) In 2009, a new element was add to senatorial courtesy that gave the president's opposite party in the Senate the power to de facto veto. 4) Competency and background checks for every applicants for judgeship are conducted by the White House, the Department of Justice, and the FBI. a) Survivors of the process are then nominated by the president. ● Senators can also recommend a nominee, which the president is then pressured into recommending. b) The Senate ends up making nominations and the president finds it very hard to not approve them. ● The Department of Justice can also influence nomination. 5) Most of the time, the president has more influence on the selection of judges to the federal courts of appeals than to federal district courts. a) Appellate courts selection is more significant than lower courts, so the president has greater interest in appointments to those positions.6) The increasing polarization of partisan parties have had a grand impact on judicial selection, especially for courts of appeals. a) This has lead to an increase in the time limit to confirm a nominee. B) The Supreme Court 1) The Supreme Court catches the highest interest of the president because his nominations can greatly impact his legacy to the nation. 2) When a Chief Justice spot is available, the nominee can be either a current member of the SC or a new judge. a) Current justices try as well to influence the nomination of their future colleges, but to little or no avail. 3) Senators have some influence over the selection of SC justices, but not as much as they do in lower courts. a) The president usually consults with the senators from the same state as the nominee after the pres. decides to select them. b) Other senators will then most likely oppose because they want a nominee from their state to receive the honor of being on the SC. c) Nominees keep a low profile most of the time. 4) In recent years, 153 people were nomination to be a SC justice. 112 have served as justices, 4 were confirmed by never served, and 29 failed to get confirmed. 5) The president has fail 20% of the time to get the nominee that they want. a) Recent Nominations 1) The politics surrounding the selection of future SC nominees will be hard to predict. a) As long as there are polarized views from Americans on social conflicts that the SC must decide on, there will always be conflict when nominating SC judges.

Class action suits

Lawsuits in which a small number of people sue on behalf of all people in similar circumstances

The Supreme Court in the past

Not diverse, primarily white males Chosen by geography Merit Seniority Easy

How cases reach the SupremeCourt

Original Jurisdiction Cases involving foreign diplomats Cases involving a state: between the United States and a State Between two or more states Between one state and citizens of another state Between a state and a foreign country Appellate Jurisdiction (*** federal route) (## state route) US Court of Appeals*** Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit*** Legislative Courts*** State courts of last resort##

They are not supposed to be involved in

POLITICS But they indirectly get involved

Organizing of the Federal Court System

Supreme Court | | Appeals 12 Courts of appeals Court of Appeals for theFC /\. |-> Appeals Leg. Cts Courts of Military appeals Appeals Independent Regulatory Commissions 91 District Courts

Marbury v Madison

The 1803 case in which Chief Justice John Marshall and his associates first asserted the right of the supreme court to determine the meaning of the U.S. Constitution. The decision established the courts power of judicial review over acts of congress, in this case the judiciary act of 1789

District courts

The 91 federal courts of original jurisdiction. They are the only federal courts in which trials are held and in which juries may be impaneled

The U.S. supreme court

The final authority Has nine justices (8 associates and one Chief Justice) They decide the types of cases they are going to hear From about 20,000 cases originally appealed they will hear about 100 in one year They are also an original jurisdiction court for extremely specialized events

District Courts

There are 91 They are original jurisdiction courts who are the only ones to have juries to decide the case

Groups

Various groups who provide resources to both defendants and plaintiffs in both criminal and civil cases depending on the circumstances Two biggest: NAACP,ACLU(American Civil Liberties Union) Some can also support litigants via amicus curiae

Class action lawsuits

When a small number of people sue on behalf of a large number of people in the same circumstances

Liable

You are responsible for what happens for a criminal case

15.1

15.1 The Judicial System The U.S. Judicial system is divided up in 3 levels and 2 types. The levels are Federal,State, and Local and the types are Criminal Law and Civil Law. Do levels later. Types of courts: Criminal: the government (acting on behalf of society)charge an individual with violating a specific law. Civil: one party has a dispute with another party and wishes to settle the dispute,such as contract, property ownership, personal and property damages, divorce, child custody, alimony, and child support and other items. Terms to know: Plaintiff vs. Prosecution, Defendant-Civil vs. Defendent-criminal, Preponderance of Evidence vs. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, Compensatory Damages and Punitive Damages vs Punishment, Settlement vs Plea Bargain, Liable vs. Guilty Civil Case: wrongful death Criminal: murder Plaintiff is the term for someone suing someone else,you are taking them to court CIVIL, disagreement Prosecution: the person accusing someone of a crime, it always needs to be the government, CRIMINAL, crime committed Defendant Civil:accused of violating a law, or not doing something Defendant Criminal: accused of committing a crime Preponderance of evidence:CIVIL, most of the evidence is against the person in a civil case you only need most of the evidence to be against them, 7 to 5 to be found liable Beyond a reasonable doubt: all of the evidence, totally without any shred, in a criminal case there can not be one minor thing to find the person innocent. The vote must be unanimous CRIMINAL Compensatory Damages and Punitive Damages deal with a CIVIL case Compensatory: the exact amount of money to compensate for your injuries, damages, pain and suffering, and even sometimes loss of consortium Punitive Damages: extra money as a punishment so that it won't happen again punishment because they did it on purpose, Ford/Pinto Punishment: death,prison, community service, fine. The price you have to pay for being convicted of a crime. It's your debt to society CRIMINAL Settlement (civil)and Plea Bargain (criminal): means that the case never goes to court. Settlement: pay the people, no one admits liability, money is exchanged CIVIL Plea Bargain: plead guilty to a lesser charge to get lesser punishment CRIMINAL Being liable vs being guilty Liable: you are responsible for what happens in a civil case CIVIL Guilty: liable for what happens in a criminal case. CRIMINAL CIVIL/ CRIMINAL PLAINTIFF: CIVIL PROSECUTION: CRIMINAL DEFENDANT: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE: CIVIL BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT: CRIMINAL COMPENSATORY: CIVIL PUNITIVE: CIVIL PUNISHMENTS: CRIMINAL-COMMUNITY SERVICE, JAIL TIME,DEATH, FINE SETTLEMENT: CIVIL PLEA BARGAIN: CRIMINAL LIABLE: CIVIL GUILTY: CRIMINAL 15.1 Participants in Legal Systems Besides the Judge or judges, the normal participants of a courtroom are Litigants: The plaintiff and the defendant (plaintiff and prosecution). All plaintiffs ( the govt. in a "standing to sue", which is a substantial interest in the case, either through a personal injury or financial damage. Some plaintiffs are allowed to have class action lawsuits which is when a small number of people in the same circumstance. Attorneys: these professionals are experienced with the law, the courtroom, the judges, and how to prosecute or defend their plaintiff or defendant in all cases. All people have a right to an attorney in a criminal case and must pay for one in a civil case. Although they have a right to one, each attorney is not equal in ability, knowledge, and resources. Many times the better attorney wins. Everyone in a CRIMINAL case has the right to an attorney, but usually they don't get a good attorney because they're very expensive. Groups: There are also various groups who provide resources to both defendants and plaintiffs in both criminal and civil cases depending on the circumstances. The two biggest courtroom advocates are the NAACP and ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), which provide financial resources to help a person, if they feel the case is an important one to their cause. Some groups can also support litigants via an "amicus curiae"(a friend of the court) brief usually only happens in big cases involving the supreme court, which means friend of the court belief. The goal is the friend of the court brief is to provide additional information to the judge to influence His or her decision.

Homework #2

1.Who can challenge a law in an American court? C. Only a person who has a serious interest in a case can challenge a law. 2. Which of the following is NOT a civil case? A. A company's CEO is charged with embezzlement of funds. 3. Access to lawyers and quality legal counsel has become more equal over time. TRUE 4. What role do interest groups play in the American judicial system? In your opinion, is this involvement of interest groups more of a positive or a negative? Explain your answer. Interest groups in the American judicial system seek out litigants whose cases seem particularly strong or they also may support them with amicus curiae briefs which attempt to influence the Court's decision, raise additional point of view, and present information it contained in the briefs. I believe that the involvement of interest groups are quite positive because it allows specific groups to have their major support and representation. Interest groups help smaller causes to be represented in a court room and influence juries to go in their favor. 5. Which of the following was actually specified in the US Constitution? E. The U.S. Supreme Court 6. Suppose a person commits murder in a national park. Where would this murder case first be heard? C. A US district court in the district where the crime took place. 7. Only a small percentage of people convicted of federal crimes in the federal district courts actually have a trial. TRUE 8. Why is jurisdiction important to the structure of the federal judicial system? In your answer, be sure to identify each federal court level and explain the type of tupes of jurisdiction each court has. In the federal judicial system there are two different types of jurisdiction and they are original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is extremely important to the structure of the federal judicial system because it figures out what courts are going to hear which specific case. In original jurisdiction courts are the independent regulatory commissions, 91 district courts, and legislative courts. If the cases are appealed they go to an appellate jurisdiction which contains the 12 courts of appeals and the court of appeals for the federal circuit. Lastly, if the case is appealed even further it will go to the highest level, the Supreme Court.

15.2 outline

15.2 The Structure of the Federal Judicial System A. The Constitution is vague about the structure of the federal court system; specifying only that there would be a Supreme Court, the Constitution left it to Congress's discretion to establish lower federal courts of general jurisdiction B. In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress created these additional Constitutional courts, and although the system has been altered over the years, the United States has never been without them C. Congress has also established legislative courts for specialized purposes including: the Court of Military Appeals, the Court of Federal claims, the Court of International Trade, and the Tax Court D. Original jurisdiction - the jurisdiction of courts that hear a case first, usually in a trial. These are the courts that determine the facts about a case E. Appellate jurisdiction - the jurisdiction of courts that hear cases brought to them on appeal from lower courts. These courts do not review the factual record, only the legal issues involved 1. District courts A. District courts - the 91 federal courts of original jurisdiction. They're the only federal courts in which trials are held in which juries may be paneled B. The jurisdiction of the district courts extend to the following: federal crimes, civil suits under federal law, civil suits between citizens of different states or between a citizen and a foreign nation where the amount in question exceeds $75,000, supervision of bankruptcy proceedings, review the actions of some federal administrative agencies, admiralty and maritime law cases, and supervision of the naturalization of aliens 1. Federal crimes - about 98% of all the criminal cases are heard in state and local court systems, not in the federal courts. Only a small percentage of the persons convicted of federal crimes in the federal district courts actually have a trial 2. Civil suits under federal law - as with criminal cases, stay in local courts handle in the civil suits. Only a small percentage of those civil cases that commence in the federal courts are decided by trial - about 1% of more than 250,000 civil cases resolved each year; and the vast majority of cases litigants settle out of court 3. Civil suits between citizens of different states, or between a citizen and a foreign national, where the amount in question exceeds $75,000 - such diversity of citizenship cases may involve, say a Californian suing a Texan. Congress established this jurisdiction to protect against the possible bias of a state court in favor of a citizen in that state C. District judges rely on an elaborate supporting cast, including clerks, bailiffs, law clerks, stenographers, court reporters and probation officers D. Another important player at the District Court level is the US attorney, each of the 91 regular districts has a US attorney who is nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate and who serves at the discretion of the president E. Most of the cases handled in the district courts are routine, and few result in policy innovations 2. Courts of appeals A. Courts of appeals - appellate courts empowered to review all final decisions of district courts, except in rare cases. In addition, they also hear appeals to orders of many federal regulatory agencies B. The United States is divided into 12 judicial circuits, including one for the District of Columbia; each circuit, except for the Washington DC serves at least two states it is been between six and 28 permanent circuit judgeships, depending on the amount of judicial work in the circuit C. There is also a special appeals court called the US Court of Appeals for the federal circuit. Congress established this court, composed of 12 judges, in 1982 to hear appeals in specialized cases such as those regarding patents, claims against United States, and international trade D. The court of appeals focus on correcting errors of procedure and law that occurred in the original proceedings of legal cases, such as when a District Court judge gave improper instructions to her jury or misinterpreted the rights provided under a law 3. The Supreme Court A. Supreme court - the pinnacle of the American judicial system. The court ensures uniformity in interpreting national laws, resolves conflicts among states, and maintains national supremacy in law. It is both original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction B. There are nine justices on the Supreme Court: eight associates and one Chief Justice (only members of the Supreme Court or called justices; all others are called judges) C. On nine justices sit together to hear cases and make decisions, but they must first decide which cases to hear D. The government does not usually wish to prosecute diplomats (it just sends them home), and there are not many legal disputes involving states as states (as opposed to, say, a prosecutor representing a state in a criminal trial.) E. Appeals from state courts must involve a "substantial federal question"; in deference to the states, the Supreme Court hears cases from state courts only if they involve federal law, and then only after the petitioner has exhausted all the potential remedies in the state court system

15.3

15.3 Judicial Selection-Federal ONLY Most state and local judges are elected by its citizens and serve for an extended period of time. Federal judges,however, from the U.S. Supreme Court all the way down to the 91 district court (100s of federal judges in the US) are appointed by the President and confirmed by the senate and serve for LIFE. They can never have their salary lowered. They are to be isolated from the politics of the government -just decide case based upon facts of the case or the appeal of the court room proceedings. They can only be removed via impeachment- only 7 times in over 200 years and NEVER from a U.S. Supreme Court justice (Samuel Chase not convinced in 1805) The U.S. president nominates dozens of judges ( lower federal courts) but only line or two justices (Supreme Court) during his or her presidency. Lower courts gets done easily and quickly;Supreme Court is very difficult. Lower Court Only There is an unwritten, informal process that all US Sentors follow when deciding on the confirmation of any federal judge nominated for a lower federal court known as Senatorial Courtesy which is: If one senator opposes the selection,then all Senators will support that one senator and reject the judge. If it's one of the 91 district courts, the senator needs to be from that state. If it's one of the 13 federal court of appeals, then the senator needs to be from the judge's home state. Senatorial courtesy has so much power, the president and his staff needs to investigate and find out who the senate will actually support before he nominates them. In fact, he usually nominates the person the senator wants. Therefore, the constitution is actually upside down in this process. It's supposed to be that the president selects and the senate confirms but because of their power,the senate actually selects and the president confirms when he nominates the person. Recently,over the past 20 years,the senate has made this a very difficult process for the president when it used to be simple and easy. ESSAY QUESTION: COMPARING HOW A FEDERAL JUDGE IS SELECTED TO HOW A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE IS SELECTED 15.3 Judicial Selection-Federal (Supreme Court Only) Many times, this is so important, it could be a president's most important legacy. The Justice serves for his life. In this scenario, the president, has much more influence and doesn't rely much on "deals" with senators. It is his pick alone and the 100 senators will have a hearing and decide -many times along with party lines. This only needs to be a majority, so 51 votes for him or her On average, it happens once every 2 years but that average has been increasing recently, why? In fact, from 1972 to 1984, only 2. President Carter had NONE. Obama now has his third. The president ALSO nominates the Chief Justice, who can be one of the other 8 or someone completely different, but this person also serves as Chief Justice for life. Today it is John Roberts, his era becomes known as the Roberts Court 15.3 recent nominations to the Supreme Court In the past it was virtually automatic. Recently it has become very difficult. After a President gets advice from his staff and nominates a person, the person must go through a very difficult,time consuming,intense hearing from the senate judiciary committee,where they ask questions or law,personal stuff and other items. After the hearing, where the senate is present, they vote. The process from nomination to confirmation should take 6 to 8 weeks, in normal circumstances. Many times,the Justice becomes labeled as either conservative or liberal. The difference is what? Summary of the nomination process: Due to the nature of politics especially today when party politics are so polarized, conflict Will always arise when a justice is nominated. The more conflict comes when a nominated Justice occurs when the president's party is the Minority of the senate,at the end of his term,is view point is distant from the norm of the senate and when the nominee is replacing someone whose views may alter the balance of the court. Eight Supreme Court Justices John Roberts Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Bryer Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan Difference between liberals and conservatives (Older) Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems. Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense.

15.4

15.4 Backgrounds of federal judges and justices There have been no set requirements in the constitution to become a federal judge. Of the 900 or so federal judges and the 9 justices,they all must be competent and be highly ethical. Over 90%,over the years have been white males with law degrees,although that number has been dropping over the last 30 years,as more African American males and females have been nominated and confirmed. There are still hardly any African American federal judges. Also, most federal judges actually politic and communicate to their senators that they want the job at the next opening Important justices: Thurgood Marshall-the first African American in 1967, and Sandra Day O'Connor-the first woman in 1981. Today 4 of the 9 are minorities (Thomas,Ginsburg, Sotomayor,and Kagan)Most agree there needs to be diversity of the SC. Most SC justices have experience as a judge on a federal appeals court,worked for the department if justices,held elective office and or been extremely accomplished or distinguished attorneys. (T. Marshall-lawyer for Brown in Brown v. Board of Edu. And leader of NAACP. 15.4 Justices Criteria for Selection Merit and service are hardly factors in selecting a SC justice,the most overwhelming factors are ideology and party. In the past, geography was important but is no longer important. Although SC justices are not supposed to be involved in politics. As they serve on the bench, they were involved in the past, president's only select justices who believe the same as them, either via the party or the ideology. For example only 13 of 112 SC justices have been from the other party. Of the 3000+ federal judges, president's and senators get to know them via politics and party events etc. Aides of the president survey decisions of the nominees, listen to past speeches, read past opinions given in the court room, political stands made, and interview people who know the candidate Members of the bench also play politics as well.for example,some of them retire after a new president is elected so he gets to lick and some retire BEFORE A new President is elected so the last gets to pick. Past: white, males, Protestant,lawyers,geography,religion Today: last 40 years,diverse,minorities, women, ideology,partisanship 15.4 SC Justices Criteria for Selection See figure 15.4 (page 526 and 527) and figure 15.5 The steps Accepting a case: approximately 8,000 causes a year are requested to be heard. They are all read and summaries are given to justices by their clerks and aides. Once per week, the 9 justices meet in conference and decide on the 1% they will hear. The rule of 4 is used here. If so,they ask for a writ of certiorari, which a formal document calling in a case to the SC- all documents such as the original transcripts etc are requested and sent to the sc to read. The solicitor general has a huge role in the moving cases from the Appeals Courts to the SC---any case which involves the federal government will be handled by the Solicitor General,not the third highest person of the desk of justice and presidential appointee The court hears cases for two weeks at a time from October through June. Two weeks listening,two weeks reading and writing. Previous to the case they have read all the lawyers briefs, read the transcripts,read amicus curiae briefs, and read all laws and previous decisions on this subject . During the hearing,they listen to the oral arguments made by both sides. they get 30 minutes only. After the hearing,the justices discuss the case in private and vote in private--all discussion and voting is done in seniority order. The Chief Justice will assign a Justice from each side will write the opinion of the court. The opinion is extremely important - it becomes the basis for the decision and cites laws,previous cases, and becomes the court's formal interpretation of the law from that point forward there are two opinions: majority opinion: written on behalf of the winning side. Dissenting opinion: written on behalf of the losing side The two opinions are read by all 9 Supreme Court just uds and then a final vote is taken among them and the decisions is announced to the public. From the original decision to hear the case until the decision is announced takes months. From the hearing to the decision takes weeks 2 on the test!!!!! A concurring opinion is sometimes written if a Justice agrees with the majority, but for a completely different reason so he writes his own,singular opinions known as a concurring opinion.

How many levels is the Supreme Court split up into

3 levels 2 types Federal, State,Local Civil and Criminal

Congress has established the federal Supreme Court to have

9 Supreme Court justices

Constitution only includes mention of

A US supreme court

Political Questions

A doctrine developed by the federal courts and uses as a means to avoid deciding some cases, principle those involving conflicts between the president and congress

Stare decisis

A latin phrase meaning "let the decision stand". Most cases reaching appellate courts are settled on this principle

Solicitor General

A presidential appointee and the third ranking office in the department is in charge of the appellate court litigation of the federal government

Opinion

A statement of legal reasoning behind a judicial decision. The content of an opinion may be as important as the decision itself

Originalism

A view that the constitution should be interpreted according to the original intentions or original meaning of the framers. Many conservatives support this view

16. State decisis is a judicial principle which states that the courts will decide cases largely based on

A.earlier court decisions

9.interest groups play a role in the federal judicial process in all of the following ways except

A.running advertisements endorsing a judicial nominee. These interest groups DO: lobbying the judiciary committee about a judicial nominees,filing amicus curiae briefs,having their lawyers represent a plaintiff,filing a class action suit

15.5 The Courts as Policymakers

Accept ion cases is a crucial stage in Supreme Court decision making,and the court is most likely to hear cases on major issues, when it disagrees with lower court decisions, and when the federal government, as represented by the solicitor general,asks for a decision. Decisions, announced once justices have written opinions and taken a final vote, in most cases follow precedent, but the court can overrule precedents, and decisions where the precedents are less clear often reflect the justices values and ideologies. The implementation of Court decisions depends on an interpreting population of judges and lawyers, an implementing population ranging from police officers and school boards to state legislatures and the president, and a consumer population of citizens affected by the citizen

15.5 Outline

Accepting Cases Courts of original jurisdiction cannot very easily refuse to consider a case; the U.S. Supreme Court has much more control over its agenda. At least once a week, the nine justices meet in conference. o The first task is to establish an agenda. Most of the justices rely heavily on law clerks to screen each case. o If four justices agree to grant review of a case ("rule of four"), it is placed on the docket and scheduled for oral argument. The Court then issues to the relevant lower federal or state court a writ of certiorari, a formal document calling up the case. The cases the Court is most likely to select are those that involve major issues - civil liberties, conflict between different lower courts on the interpretation of federal law, or disagreement between a majority of the Supreme Court and lower-court decisions. As a presidential appointee, and the third-ranking official in the Department of Justice, the solicitor general is in charge of the appellate court litigation of the federal government. The solicitor general and a staff have four key functions: 1. To decide whether to appeal cases the government has lost in the lower courts 2. To review and modify the briefs presented in government appeals 3. To represent the government before the Supreme Court 4. To submit an amicus curiae brief on behalf of a litigant in a case in which the government has an interest but is not directly involved. By avoiding frivolous appeals and displaying a high degree of competence, the solicitor general typically earns the confidence of the Court, which in turn grants review of a large percentage of the cases they submit. o The Court often asks the solicitor general to provide the government's opinion on whether to accept a case. The Court has made about 80 formal written decisions per year in which their opinions could serve as precedent and thus as the basis of guidance for lower courts. o In a few dozen additional cases, the Court reaches a per curiam decision - a decision without explanation. The Process of Decision Making The second task is to discuss cases that the Court has heard. o The Court hears oral arguments in two-week cycles: two weeks of courtroom arguments followed by two weeks of reflecting on cases and writing opinions about them. Before the justices enter the courtroom to hear the lawyers for each side present their arguments, they have received elaborately prepared written briefs from each party involved. o They have also probably received several amicus curiae briefs from parties who are interested in the outcome of the case but who are not formal litigants. The attorneys have a half-hour to address the Court by summarizing their briefs and emphasizing their most compelling points. o The justices may listen attentively, interrupt with penetrating or helpful questions, request information, talk to one another, read, or simply gaze at the ceiling. Back in the conference room, the chief justice raises a particular case and invites discussion. o Discussion can range from perfunctory to profound and from courteous to caustic. o Once a tentative vote has been reached on a case, it is necessary to write an opinion, a statement of the legal reasoning behind the decision of the case. The content of an opinion may be as important as the decision itself. o Broad and bold opinions have far-reaching implications for future cases; narrowly drawn opinions may have little impact beyond the case being decided. Tradition in the Supreme Court requires that the chief justice, if in the majority, write the opinion or assign it to another justice in the majority. They often write the opinion in landmark cases. o If the chief justice is part of the minority, the senior associate justice in the majority assigns the opinion. The person assigned to write an opinion circulates the drafts within the Court, justices make suggestions, and they all conduct negotiations among themselves. o A justice must redraft an opinion that proves unacceptable to the majority of his or her colleagues on the Court. Justices are free to write their own opinions, to join in other opinions, or to associate themselves with part of one opinion and part of another. o Justices opposed to all or part of the majority's decision write dissenting opinions. Concurring opinions are those written not only to support a majority decision but also to stress a different constitutional or legal basis for the judgment. At least six justices must participate in a case, and decisions are made by majority vote. o If there is a tie, the decision of the lower court form which the case came is sustained. o Five votes in agreement on reasoning underlying an opinion are necessary for the logic to serve as precedent for judges of lower courts. Judges and justices settle the vast majority of cases on the principle of stare decisis ("let the decision stand"), meaning that an earlier decision should hold for the case being considered. All courts rely heavily on precedent - the way similar cases were handled in the past - as a guide to current decisions. o The Supreme Court is in a position to overrule its own precedents. The Constitution does not specify a set of rules by which justices are to interpret decision making. There are a number of approaches to decision making. One is originalism, which takes two principal forms: o The original intent theory holds that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it. o The original meaning theory is the view that judges should base their interpretations of a written constitution or law on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have declared the ordinary meaning of the text to be. Both of these theories share the view that there is an authority, contemporaneous with a constitution's or statute's ratification. The other approach is viewing the Constitution as written in flexible terms, as a document whose meaning is dynamic and thus changes over time. A number of scholars have proposed an attitudinal model of decision making in which justices decide cases based largely on the outcomes they refer rather than on precedent of the meaning or intentions of the Constitution's framers or of legislators. o In other words, policy preferences matter in judicial decision making, especially on the nation's highest court. Implementing Court Decisions Supreme Court decisions are not self-implementing; they are actually "remands" to lower courts, instructing them to act in accordance with the Court's decisions. Court decisions carry legal, even moral, authority, but courts must rely on other units of government to enforce their decisions Judicial implementation refers to how and whether court decisions are translated into actual policy, thereby affecting the behavior of others. o Judicial decision is the end of one process - the litigation process - and the beginning of another process - the process of judicial implementation. Charles Johnson and Bradley Canon suggest that implementation of court decision involves several elements: 1. There is an interpreting population, heavily composed of lawyers and judges. 2. There is an implementing population. 3. Every decision involves a consumer population. Congress and presidents can also help or hinder judicial implementati

The politics of judicial selection

All federal judges and justices are appointed by the president. Nominations must be confirmed by the senate Confirmation of district or circuit court judges is influenced by senatorial courtesy, by which senators of the president's party from the state where the district is located, or in which a circuit court nominee resides, can stop confirmation Justices are carefully selected by the president when there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court Justices serve much longer than a president's term If the president's choice is confirmed by the senate, the court will be more closely aligned with the president's ideology for a longer period of time Nomination was routine for most of the 20th century, but most of the 1960s nominations have become much more contentious,especially with regard to issues like abortion, affirmative action,and other socially divisive issues

Senatorial courtesy

An unwritten tradition whereby nominations for state level federal judicial posts are not confirmed if they are opposed by a senator of the president's party from the state in which the nominee will serve. The tradition also applies to courts of appeals when there is opposition from a senator of the president's party who is from the nominees state

Courts of appeals

Appellate courts empowered to review all final decisions of district courts,except in rare cases. In addition, they also hear appeals to orders of many federal Regulatory agencies

4. Which of following statements is true about Congress's influence over Supreme Court decision making

C. Congress has significant control over the courts appellate jurisdiction

5. Senatorial courtesy is

B.a tradition whereby nominees for federal judgeships must meet the approval of senators of the president's party from the state in which the nominee will serve

15. The rule of four is a Supreme Court practice which permits four of the nine justices to

B.grant a writ of certiorari

12. All of the following are true of the Supreme Court execpt

B.members are seated in alphabetical order These are TRUE: cases are not allowed to be televised,there were originally six members in the court,there have been as many as ten members in the court,their members are the only ones to be called justice.

17. Legal briefs submitted by a friend of the court for the purpose of influencing the courts decision by raising additional arguments and points of view is an

C.amicus curiae brief

20. The philosophy of the courts where judges make decisions based on the spirit of the times and needs of the nation is known as

C.judicial activism

8.one major weakness of federal courts as policy makers is that

C.the courts must rely on other institutions to implement their decisions

14.this is a request for the Supreme Court to order up the records from a lower court to review the case

C.writ of certiorari

One party has a dispute with another party and wishes to settle the dispute,such as contract,property damages,divorce,child custody,alimony and child support,and other items

Civil

Compensatory and Punitive Damages

Civil Exact amount of money to compensate for your injury and property including pain and suffering Punitive: extra money as punishment because they did it on purpose or stop companies from doing it again

Settlement

Civil Means the case never goes to court,no one admits liability and pay them off and money is exchanged,many people sue at first to get a settlement

Preponderance of evidence

Civil Most of the evidence is against the person 7/5

Defendant

Civil Is accused of wrongdoing or crime

The government acting on behalf of society to charge an individual for violating a specific law

Crimimal

Punishment

Criminal Death,prison,community service,fined

Defendant

Criminal Is accused of wrongdoing or crime

Plea Bargain

Criminal Plea guilty to get a lesser charge to get a lesser punishment

Guilty

Criminal You are responsible for what happens in a criminal case

10.the power of the courts to determine which acts of congress,the executive branch,and state legislatures are constitutional is known as

E. Judicial review

7.which of the following is true about the vast majority of cases decided by the supreme court

E. They are decided

2.which of the following is part of the federal court system

E. U.S. Supreme Court,Court of Military Appeals, US Court of Appeals

18. A decision written by one or more judges expressing disagreement with the majority opinion of the Supreme Court is a

E.dissenting opinion

1. Which of the following is true of the judicial system in the US

E.it is an adversary system in which justice is supposed to emerge from the struggle between two contending points of view

13. The philosophy of the courts where judges play a minimal policymaking role and defer to legislatures whenever possible is known as

E.judicial restraint

19. The Supreme Court is strengthened by its ability to

E.select the cases it will hear

Other miscellaneous things to know

ESSAYS: IDEOLOGY AND PARTISANSHIP COMPARING HOW THE FEDERAL JUDGE IS SELECTED TO A LEGISLATIVE JUDGE HOW A CASE GETS THERE HOW THEY TAKE CARE OF A SUPREME COURT CASE KNOW WHAT A LEGISLATIVE COURT IS TO A LEGISLATIVE JUDGE: run by the state, more local, have to get elected Numerous questions on stare decisis (let decision stand) and rule of precedent Couple questions that are difficult Four justices have to agree a case Not many originalism,original intent,original meaning Only the Chief Justice What they ruled on Examples on which court they go to #4 Does it go to state or federal court Two states suing each other would go to SC original jurisdiction True or False: judges get involved in politics , however they are involved indirectly True judges are supposed to be away from politics Justifiable disputes something that can be decided by the courts, they have to be able to figure out an answer to it, you can't sue someone just because they have a different answer than you UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CRIMINAL AND CIVIL COURTS Civil- anyone can sue anyone American Civil Liberty Union: interest group

Judiciary act of 1789

Established most of the courts we still have today

Amicus Curiae

Friend of the court,goal is to provide additional info to the judge to influence his or her decision Usually only happens in big cases involving SC

Read Chapter Saturday

Go over charts

Original intent theory

Holds that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it.

Judicial implementatjon

How and whether court decisions are translated into actual policy ,thereby affecting the behavior of others. The courts rely on other units of government to enforce their decisions

15.1 outline

I. 15.1: The Nature of the Judicial System - The system is based on the theory that justice will emerge out of the struggle between two contending points of view. The task of the judge is to apply the law to the case, determining which party is legally correct. A. There are two basic kinds of cases - criminal law and civil law cases: 1. In a criminal law case, the government charges an individual with violating specific laws. The offense may harm an individual or to all of society, but in either case it calls for punishment in the forms of imprisonment or a fine. 2. A civil law case involves a dispute between two parties over a wide range of matters including contracts, property ownership, divorce, child custody, and other items. Civil law consists of both statutes (laws passed by legislatures) and common law (the accumulation of judicial decisions about legal issues). B. Participants in the Judicial System 1. Litigants a. Every case is a dispute between a plaintiff and a defendant, in which the plaintiff brings some charge against the defendant. b. All cases are identified with the name of the plaintiff first and the defendant second. c. In many cases, a jury (consisting of 12 people), is responsible for determining the outcome of a lawsuit d. Plaintiffs must have a standing to sue, where they must have serious interest in a case, which is typically determined by whether they have sustained or are in immediate danger of sustaining a direct injury from another party or an action of government. e. The courts have broadened the concept of standing to sue to include class action suits, which permit a small number of people to sue on behalf of all other people in similar circumstances. f. Conflicts must not only arise from actual cases between litigants with standing to sue, but they must also be justiciable disputes - issues that are capable of being settled by legal methods. 2. Attorneys a. Although lawyers were once available only to the rich, today federally funded Legal Services Corporation employs lawyers to serve the legal needs of the poor, and state and local governments provide public defenders for poor people accused of crimes. b. The poor are often served by overworked attorneys with few resources to devote to an individual case. 3. Groups a. Because they recognize the courts' ability to shape policy, interest groups often seek out litigants whose cases seem particularly strong. b. At other times groups do not directly argue the case for litigants, but support them instead with amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs, which attempt to influence the Court's decision, raise additional points of view, and present information not contained in the briefs of the attorneys for the official parties to the case.

Original meaning theory

Is the view that judges should base their interpretations of a written constitution or law on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have declared the ordinary meaning of the text to be. It is with this view that most originalists,such as Justice Antonin Scalia are associated, original meaning being more discernible than the often nebulous original intent

The Backgrounds Of judges and justices

Judges and justices are not a representative sample of the American people, they are lawyers and disproportionately with white males. They usually share the partisan and ideological views of the president who nominated them, and these views are often reflected in their decisions Other characteristics, such as gender and races are also seen to influence decisions.

15.4 The Backgrounds of Justices and judges

Judges and justices are not a representative sample of the American people. They are all lawyers and are disproportionately white males. They usually share the partisan and ideological views of the president who nominated them, and these views are often reflected in their decisions,especially in the higher courts. Other characteristics such as race and gender are also seen to influence decisions

Understanding the courts

Judges and justices are not elected and are difficult to remove They are not completely insulated from politics and often have acted to promote opened in the political system They have a number of tools to avoided making controversial decisions There are a number of means more democratically elected officials can use to overturn court decisions

15.4 Outline

The Backgrounds of Judges and Justices I. Background of judges and justices A. The constitution sets no special requirements for judges or justices, but most observers conclude that the federal judiciary comprises a distinguished group of men and women. 1. Competence and ethical behavior are important to presidents for reasons beyond merely obtaining Senate confirmation of their judicial nominees. a. The criteria of competence and ethics still leave a wide field from which to choose, other characteristics also carry considerable weight. II. Backgrounds B. The judge serving on the federal district and circuit courts are not a representative sample of the American people. 1. They are always lawyers. 2. They are also overwhelmingly white men. a. Jimmy Carter appointed more women and minorities to the federal bench, more than all presidents combined. b. Ronald Reagan did not continue this, he was the first to appoint a women to the Supreme Court. c. A large percentage of Bill Clinton's nominees were women and minorities. d. George W. Bush's nominees were more diverse then his father's and they were uniformly conservative. e. Obama nominated women and ethnic minorities to a majority of the judicial vacancies. C. Federal Judges have typically held office as a judge or prosecutor and often they have been involved in partisan politics. This involvement is generally what brings them to the attention of senators and the Department of Justice when they seek nominees for leadership. 3. Supreme Court justices are not w representative sample of the population. f. All have been lawyers and all have been white men. They are Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayerm and Elena Kagan. 4. Usually justices have held high administrative or judicial positions before making it to the Supreme Court such as elective office, being a judge, and many have worked for the Department of Justice. However, some have had no judicial experience at all. III. Criteria for Selection D. Geography was once a prominent criterion for selection to the Court, but it is no longer very important. Today, partisanship remains an important influence on the selection of judges and justices. 1. Partisanship is an important influence on the selection of judges and justices. a. Only 13 of 112 members of the Supreme Court have been nominated by presidents of a different party. 2. The role of partisanship is not surprising. b. Most of a president's aqua intended are made through the party, and there is usually a certain congruity between party and political views. Most judges and justices have at one time been active partisans. 3. Ideology is another important part in the selection of judges and justices. 4.Members of the federal bench also play the game of politics and try to time their retirements so that a president with compatible views so that a president with compatible views will choose their successor. IV. Background Characteristics and Policymaking E. Presidents are typically pleased with the performance of their nominees to the Supreme Court and through them have slowed or reversed trends in the Court's decisions. 1. It is not always easy to predict the policy inclinations of candidates, and presidents have been disappointed in their nominees about one fourth of the time. 2. Although women and people of different ethnicities and religions may desire to have people in their group appointed to the federal bench- at the very least- judgeships have symbolic importance for them- the real question is what, if any, policy differences result. 3. Many members of each party have been appointed, of course, and it appears that Republican judges in general are somewhat more conservative than are Democratic judges. a. Former prosecutors on the Supreme Court have tended to be less sympathetic towards defendant's rights than have other justices. 4. Background does make a difference and issues with party affiliation and other characteristics are imperfect predictors of judicial behavior

Amicus curiae briefs

Legal briefs submitted by a friend of the court for the purpose of influencing a courts decision by raising additional points of view and presenting information not contained in the briefs of the formal parties

Participants of the court room

Litigants,Attorneys,Groups

6. Influence the selection of federal judges and Supreme Court justices

Partisanship Ideology Experience Judicial philosophy

15.2 the structure of the federal judicial system

The district courts are courts of original jurisdiction and hear most of the federal criminal and civil cases and diversity of citizenship cases, supervise bankruptcy proceedings and handle naturalization and admiralty and maritime law, and review the actions of some federal administrative agencies. Circuit courts or courts of appeals hear appeals from the district courts and from many regulatory agencies. They focus on correcting errors of procedure and law that occurred in the original proceedings of legal cases. The Supreme Court sits at the pinnacle of the system, deciding individual cases, resolving conflicts among the states,maintaining national supremacy in the lame and ensuring uniformity in the interpretation of national laws. most Supreme Court cases come from the lower federal courts and a very few are cases for which the Court has original jurisdiction

Judicial review

The power of the courts to determine whether acts of congress and by implication, the executive are in accord with the U.S. constitution. Judicial review and his associates in Marbury V. Madison

Statuary construction

The judicial interpretation of an act of congress. IN Some cases where statutory construction is an issue, congress passed new legislation to clarify existing laws

Original jurisdiction

The jurisdiction of courts that hear a case first usually in a trial. These are the courts that determine the facts about a case

Appellate jurisdiction

The jurisdiction of courts that hear cases brought to them on appeal from lower courts. These courts do no review the factual record, only the legal issues involved

Supreme court

The pinnacle of the american judicial system. The court ensures uniformity in interpreting national laws, resolves conflicts among states, and maintains national supremacy in law. It has both original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction

Litigant

The plaintiffs and the defendant. People involved in that case

Standing to sue

The requirement that plaintiffs have a serious interesf in a case,which depends on whether they have sustained or ar likely to sustain a direct and substantial injury from another party ir from an action of government

Attorneys

These professionals are experienced with the law,the court room,the judges,and how to prosecute or defined their plaintiff or defendant in all cases All people have a right to an attorney in a criminal case and must pay for one in a civil case The better attorney usually wins the case