Chapter 10: The Judiciary

Amicus Curiae

"Friend of the court", amicus may file briefs or even appear to argue their interests orally before the court

Molding the new nation early days

1.) Declined to give Washigton advice on the legality of some of his actions, and tried to establish the court as independent even though John Jay gave resident frequent advice 2.) Early court tried to advance principles of nationalism and national supremacy over the states

Who are Federal Judges?

1.) Federal district judges had held other political positions such as state court judge or prosecutors . 2. Most recent nominees have had other judicial experiences

Checks on the Judicial branch by Congress

1.) the authority to alter the court jurisdictions 2.) propose constitutional amendments 3.) Can impeach and remove federal judges

Judicial philosophy and Decision Making

Justices follow the law of previous cases in deciding cases as at hand. They follow stare decisis which dictates that. Yet, some legal factors have been found to also affect the high court's decision.

Reward

Most of the appointees have been personal friends of the president. And most chose ones that have the same party affiliation.

Pursuit of political support

Ronald Reagan found out that he was low on women voters and promised to appoint the first woman to the Supreme Court, and Obama's first nominee was a Latino woman which did not hurt him

First woman on supreme court

Sandra Day O'Connor, (also known as the most powerful woman in America)

Senatorial Courtesy

Process by which presidents generally defer selection of the district court judges to the choice of senators of their own party who represent the state where the vacancy occurs.

Gonzales vs Carhart

Roberts Court ruled that the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act was constitutional , which was a dramatic reversal of the Rehnquist court's 2003 decision in Stenberg vs Carhart which they declared unconstitutional.

Policy Making

The high Court has declared more than one hundred federal law unconstitutional. Some have no significance, but others like Citizens United vs FEC, the Court declared a section of BICRA unconstitutional o the grounds that it infringed on corporations freedom of speech rights. 1. Another policy of the high Court is the ability to overrule itself. ALthough the court ususally abides by stare decisis , yet by one count it has overruled itself in more than 200 cases. (EX: Brown vs Board of Education, overruled Plessy vs Ferguson 2. A measure of the growing power of the federal courts is the degree to which they now handle issue that had been considered political questions more appropriately left to the other branches. (Ex: Prior to 1962, the court refused to hear cases questioning the size and population of congressional districts , no matter how unequal they are.The boundary of a legislative district was considered a political question. Yet Justice William Brena Jr. said just because a case involved a political issue, it did not necessarily involves a political question.

Senate Committee Hearings and Senate Votes

Until 1929, all but one Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on a Court nominee was conducted in executive sessions that is closed to the public. 1916 hearing on Louis Brandeis the first Jewish justice, were conducted in public and lasted 19 days and he was never called to testify. In 1925 Harlan Fiske was the first to testify before the committee.

Article III Section 2

specifies the judicial power of the supreme court, it also states all federal crimes except impeachment should be tried by jury in the state it was committed in

Stare Decisis

( let the decision stand) In court rulings, a reliance on past decisions or precedent to formulate decisions in new case

Court checks President and Congress

1.) Can preside over presidential impeachment article I section 3 says that if the president is tried the Chief Justice shall preside"

Legislative Courts

(Courts established by Congress for specialized purposes such as the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims) They are also called Article I courts , they are also appointed by the President, but serve fixed and limited terms

Constitutional Courts

(Federal courts created specifically by the U.S. constitution or by congress pursuant to its authority in Article III) The federal district courts, courts of appeal, and the Supreme court are called this or ( Article III) courts, because Article III of the constitution establishes them or authorized congress to establish them. Judges for these courts are nominated by the president with advice and consent from senate and stay on for life if they take on good behavior.

Toward Reform: Power, Policy Making, and the Court

1. All judges make policy, the decision of the high Court make a tremendous impact on American politics and policy 2. Many policies we take for granted may would not have come to fruition without the support of the high Court 3. Marshall Court played an important in establishing the role and power of the high Court including establishing the power of judicial review in Marbury vs Madison. 4. Warren Court decided on a number of civil rights cases that broadly expanded civil and political rights. These decisions drew a great deal of criticism by but played a major role in broadening public understanding of the high Court as a policy maker. 5. Rehnquist Court made numerous decisions related to federalism which caused observers to take note of the Court's ability to referee conflicts between the federal government and states 6. The roberts Court reversed the trend of the Court agreeing with executive action during times of war by finding in 2008 the Bush administration's denial of habeas corpus rights to prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay it was an unconstitutional exercise of presidential power.

Checks on the Judicial branch by president

1.) Can appoint federal judges

District Courts

1. Created when Congress enacted the Judiciary Act of 1789. 2. District Courts are federal trial courts. There are 94 federal district courts and none cut across state lines. 3. Each states have at least 1 district court and states like California, Texas, and New York have 4. 4. They have original jurisdiction over only specific types of cases. 5. All though the rules governing district court's jurisdiction is complex, cases heard by them fall into one of three categories. (a) They involve the federal Gov. as a party (b) They present a federal question based on constitutional claims, treaty with another nation, or federal statutes. This is called federal question Jurisdiction and it can involve a civil and criminal case. (c) Involve civil suits where citizens are from two different states or more than $75,000 is at issue. 6. Each federal district has a U.S. attorney appointed by the president. And he/she is the chief law enforcement officer. They have considerable amount of discretion, whether they want to do a civil or criminal case, or file charges against individuals or corporations. The number of assistants in each district depends on the number of litigations.

Criminal and Civil Laws

1. Each civil and criminal has a plaintiff, or petitioner, who brings charges against a a defendant or respondent. Sometimes the government is the plaintiff. 2.But it is always the government that brings a criminal case. When cases are initiated they are known by the the name of the petitioner ( EX: Marbury vs Madison, Williams Marbury was the petitioner suing the respondents, the U.S. Government). 3. During trials judges must interpret the intent of the law enacted by congress and state legislatures. ( So they hear testimonies, read reports, and look to see if any similar trial exists, and also rely on presentations by lawyers in their brief and trials. 4. Another important component is the jury. This body acts as the ultimate finder of facts and plays and important role in determining the culpability of the individual on trial. However lawyers could use their peremptory challenges ( those made without a reason) to dismiss people from the jury if lawyers believe they would be hostile to the case.

Supreme Court

1. The center of high issues that are yet to be resolved successfully in the political process. 2. Acts as the final interpreter of the constitution 3. It insures uniformity in the interpretation of national laws and the constitution, resolves conflict among states, and maintains the supremacy of the national law in the federal system 4. Since 1896 the court has ha 8 associate justices and one chief justice, the lowest number befor was 6 the most was 10 5. compared to the other branches the supreme court operates with little staff, along with four clerks each justice employs, and 400 staff members at the Supreme Court

Nomination Criteria

1. You have to be lucky 2. Depending on the time of vacancy the president may or may not have a list of people 3. Look through circle of friends or administration to fill the vacancy 4. IMPORTANT CRITERIA 1. Competence 2. Ideology or political preference 3. Rewards 4. pursuit of political support 5. religion 6. Race 7. Gender

Judicial Activism

A philosophy of judicial decisions making that posits judges should use their power broadly to further justices 1. Activists argue that it is in it;s power for the court to correct injustices that the other branches of government have made 2. Implicated in this argument the court has to protect oppressed minorities, they point to Brown vs Board of Education, as an excellent example of judicial activism. 3. Judge ruled segregating schools goes against 14th amendment, and if the court had not stepped in segregation would still be here today. 4. Recently a new kind of conservative activism has surfaced. Liberal activists usually try to expand the the rights of political and legal minorities. Yet, Conservative Activists want to see this as an opportunity to issue broad rulings that impose their own political beliefs and policies on the country at large. 5. Some scholars argue that the increase in conservative activists has to do with the effect i has on the Court's stare Decisis and adherence to precedent

Precedent

A prior judicial decision that serves as a rule for settling subsequent cases of similar nature

Interest Group Participation

A quick way for the justices to gauge the ideology ramification of a particular civil rights and liberties case is by the nature and amount of interest groups participation. Most cases heard by the supreme court involve either the government or interest group, as a sponsor or as an amicus curiae. 1. The position of both parties in a case are often echoed or expanded in amicus curiae briefs by IG's or other parties affected by the case 2. Interest groups also provide info not in the briefs, help write briefs, and assist in oral arguments during mock court sessions. 5. In these sessions the lawyer goes through role pay with other prominent lawyers and professors role playing the various justices 6. Amicus participation has increased since 1970s, because litigation is so expensive it and few of the people have the money to support a case, so they group up with other through amicus briefs to advance their policy preference. ( Cases like Brown v Board of Education, Planned Parenthood of southern Pennsylvania vs Casey, ad Grutter vs Bollinger, attracted large number of support and amicus briefs as Ig's ability to lobby the judicial branch ) Political Scientists have found that not only do amicus briefs in favor of certiorari significantly improve the chances of a case being heard, but two three or four briefs increase the chance as well.

Writ of Certiorari

A request for the Court to order up the records from a lower court to review the case ( nearly all appellate cases that have gone to the high court arrived there on a petition for this)

Oral Argument

After case is accepted and amicus briefs are give to the court for full review, and the court are submitted on each side, oral arguments take place. 1. Supreme Court annual time begins the first Monday of October and runs through mid-june 2. Justices hear oral arguments from the that monday to the beginning of April 3. Yet, special cases (Ex: Nixon vs US) are heard later in the year 4. During the term, "sittings", periods of about two weeks in which cases are heard, alternate with "recess" also about two weeks long 5. Oral arguments are usually heard Monday through Wednesday 6. Oral arguments are limited to immediate parties, yet it is not unusual for Solicitor General to appear and argue orally as an amicus curiae 7. The oral argument are fraught with timed-honored traditions and ceremonies (1) At ten o'clock sharp, every morning when the court is in session, the court marshall dressed informal morning coat comes in saying "Oyez, oyez, oyez!". As the nine Justices emerge from a reddish purple curtain to take their places on the raised and slightly angled bench. Chief justices sits in the middle. The remaining justices sit to the right and left alternate from seniority. 8. All attorneys are given 1 half hour to present case and time includes answering questions from the bench. 9. As lawyer approaches the mahogany a green light goes on indicating his/her time has began 10. white light flashes when five minutes 11. Red means time to stop 12. Many Court watchers try to predict how to justices will vote based on the questions they ask, but nothing came up or it is hard to determine. 13. oral Cases have several important functions (1) it is a small poportunity for a small portion of the people watching the case or attending the hearing to observe the work of the court (2) It assures lawyers that the justices have heard the argument and now they can focus on arguments they believe are important (3) Provides Court with more information, not written in the briefs (4) ORAL Arguments are good way for the justices to highlight important certain issues for other justices

Writing Opinions

After final vote after conference, the Justices must now formulate a formal opinion of the Court. If chief justice is in the majority he will get to chose who writes the opinion. 1. This gives the Chief justices to wield a tremendous amount of power and it is a very important strategic decision. If in minority then in the majority it fails in the most senior member 2. The opinions of the Court could take several different forms (1) Most opinions are reached by majority of the opinion written by one member to reflect the view of at least five members. usually sets out the justification for coming up with the decision, and these legal reasons become a precedent for deciding future cases. 2. The reason behind any decision is often as important as the outcome. Under the system of stare decisis, both are likely to be the precedent later by lower courts confronted with cases involving similar issues. 3. In the event of writing the final opinion, informal caucusing and negotiation of ten take place, as justices might want one word changed or modifications as a condition of their continued support of the majority opinion. This negotiation process could lead to division in the Court's majority. When this happens the court is forced to make a choice by doing a plurality voting system which attracts the support of three to four justices. 4. Even though it it does not have precedential value of majority opinion, it has been used many times to determine cases. 5. Justices who agree with the case, but not the legal rationale of the decision, could file concurring opinions to express their differing approach. 6. Justices who do not agree with the outcome of the case could file dissenting opinions. 7. Even though these opinions filed have little legal value, the could however be an indicator of legal though on the Court, excellent platforms for justices to ot their personal opinions, and legal disagreements with other members of the Court. (2)

Strict Constitutionalist

An appeal to the constitutional interpretation that emphasize interpreting the constitution as it was written and intended by the Framers

Clerks

As early as 1850 the justices wanted congress to approve the hiring of clerks. but congress denied it. So when Justices Horace Gray hired the first clerk he payed him out of his own pocket and he ran errands and cutting the justices hair. Also he was a top graduate of harvard law school. Finally in 1886 congress authorized each justices to hire a clerk for about $1,600 a year. Clerks are usually selected from the top graduating classes of prestigious law schools. They perform many tasks like looking for facs, play tennis, or even walking with the justices. Yet, they spend most of their time researching, summarizing cases, and helping justices write opinions. Clerks are also the first to vote on a petition and influence which case gets a second look. Just how much help they provide in the writing of opinions no one knows. Over the time the number of justices has increased from two to forty. As the number of clerks have grown so has the number and length of the Court's opinions. And recently the number of decided cases as increased due to more help to the justices. Clerks may sometimes talk about the views and personalities of their justice, but rarely has a clerk leaked info. Yet,a former clerk to justices Edward Lazarus broke the silence and talked about how the Court really worked and that he thinks the Justices give the clerks too much power.

Investigation

As president starts to pick nominees white house staff members do a background check. Names are also sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for background checks and the names are forwarded to the American Bar Association (ABA), the politically powerful organization that represents the interest of the legal profession. Started by Eisenhower because he believed it helped insulate the process from political pressure. The ABA then rates each nominee on his or her qualification. Then it is sent to the senate. The Committee asks each nominee to complete a sheet of long lengthy questionnaires detailing previous work, judicial opinions written, judicial philosophies, speeches, and even an interview that were given the the press.

Hearing and Deciding the Case

As the case is accepted both sides (lawyers ) start to begin to take action. They prepare their written arguments for submission to the Court. In these briefs the lawyers cite prior case law and make arguments as to why the Court should find in favor of their client.

Rule of Fours

At least four justices of the Supreme Court must vote to consider a case before it can be heard

Religion

Back in the day protestants served and now most Catholic's serve on the court

Brief

Because Court of Appeals hear no new testimonies he lawyers submit written argument, this is also submitted in trial courts and than they appear and present and argue the case orally to the court.

Jurisdiction

Before a state or federal court hear a case it must have this (authority vested in a particular court to hear and decide the issue in a particular case) Jurisdiction of the federal courts is by the U.S. Constitution and by statue. Jurisdiction is conferred based on issue, the amount of money involved in a dispute, or the type of offense.

Marbury vs Madison

Case in which the Supreme Court first asserted the power of judicial review by finding that the congressional statute extending the Court's original jurisdictions was unconstitutional . It rose a lot of political controversy

Criminal Law

Codes of behavior related o the protection of property and safety of individuals Crimes are graded as felonies, misdemeanors, or offenses, according to their severity. some acts like murder and rape are considered crimes in all states. Although all states outlaw murder their way of dealing with it differs. However some acts like gambling is illegal in some states. Criminal law assumes that society itself is the victim of an illegal act and brings action on behalf of the injured party

Civil Laws

Codes of behavior related to the conduct and relationship between individuals or groups More common for individuals to file civil suits than national, state, or local governments. Case are brought on by people who believe they have been injured by another party, and must take action to seek judicial relief. Usually the lawsuits are filed to recover something of value, whether it is the right to vote or fair treatment. Most civil disputes that arrive never go to court. Some are handled before the court makes a decision.

Conflict among the court of appeals

Conflicts with the lower courts is another reason the courts seek action. The justices want consistency throughout the lower court system so when problems arrive dealing with the constitutional interpretation or federal law they take action. This often happens when civil right or civil liberties come into questioning. Political scientists have determined that justices ideological leaning comes into play a role. justices also take action when several district circuit courts are in disagreement over a main issue

Trial Courts

Courts at the bottom of the system, where litigation begins ( so courts of original jurisdiction where cases begin)

Appointments to the U.S Supreme Courts

Even though must presidents try to appoint justices who share the same views and ideological philosophies they have often been wrong. Court nominees have encountered more oppositions than district courts or court of appeals nominees.

Behavioral Characteristics

Factors that most likely to influence a judges decision is social background difference, childhood experience, religious values, education, early political and legal careers, political party loyalty 1. (Ex: Justices Potter Steward considered a moderate on most civil liberties cases usually took a more liberal approach when it came to cases dealing with freedom of speech, he was a news reporter back in the day)

Weaknesses of the Court eary days

Frequent changes in personnel, limited space, no clerical support, and no system in reporting decisions. Many good lawyers did not want to join because of the moving around the circuit courts did

During the 1800s

Hamilton firmly believed that the judicial branch was the weakest of the three branches. It was also forgotten about by the people when moved the the district of columbia to make room for the court. It was placed in the basement of the left senate wing. Framers devoted little time to writing article three. Many argued about the cases the court will take and a system of federal court, but the decision was left to congress.

John Marshall

Headed the Marshall court from 1801 to 1835, which brought needed prestige to the court. Appointed by John Adams as a chief justice three years after declining to be a associate justice. 1.) He discontinued the practice of series opinions which was the costume of the King's Bench in Great Britain 2.) Before he took the position the judges spoke as individuals voicing their opinions, but he believed they should all agree as one and during his first four years the Court spoke as one 3.) Also established the power of the Court over state courts jurisdictions and it established the supremacy of the federal government and Congress over state governments through broad interpretation of necessary and power clause in McCulloch vs Maryland 4.) Finally is the right of Judicial Review which established the Court as the final arbiter of the constitutional questions with the right to declare congressional acts void

Writs of Certiorari and the Rule of Four

High Court controls own case load trhough the certiorari process, deciding which cases it wants to hear and rejecting most cases that come to it. All petitions or Writ Certiorari must meet two conditions 1. Must come from a court of appeal, a special three-judge court of military appeals, district courts, or a state court of last resort. 2. Case must involve federal question. Also the reason why the High Court must accept the case for review and legal supporting the position are set out in the petitioner's writ of certiorari The Clerk of the Court transmits petitions for writs of certiorari first to the Chief Justice, where clerks review the petition then to the other justices 2. All of the justices participate in the cert pool, yet Justice Alito gives his clerk's a lot of authority to choose the cases for him. 3. After they collect the cases they want to hear they share notes and review their assigned fraction of the petition 4. Then they the ones that were chosen are brought up in a weekly conference , they than vote and then by custom Certiorari is granted

The Attitudinal Model

Holds the justices decide cases according to their personal preferences towards issues of public policy 1. Some factors that derive attitude are a justices party affiliation, the party of the appointing president, and the liberal/conservative leaning of the justice. 2. (Ex: a liberal justice appointed by a Democratic president would be more likely to side with side with the president and be pro-choice for abortion)

Judicial Implementation

How and whether judicial decisions are translated into actual public policies affecting more than the immediate parties to a lawsuit

Implementing Court Decisions

How do High Court ruling translate into public policy? 1. Even though judicial decisions carry out legal and even moral authority , all courts must rely on other units of government to carry out their directives 2. If for example the president does not like a Supreme Court ruling he could underfund programs needed to implement a decision or seek only tax enforcement. 3. How well a decision is implemented often depends on how well crafted or popular it is. ( Ex: Brown vs Board of Education, Hostile reactions and absence of guidelines meant that the ruling went unenforced for years 4. The implementation of judicial decisions involves what political scientists call an implementing population and consumer population (a) Implementing population consists of those people responsible for carrying out a decision. It varies, depending on the policy and issues in question it can include( lawyers, judges, public officials, government officials, corporations, hospitals administrators, police departments). In the case of school prayer the implementing population could involve teachers, school administrations, and school board (b) Consumer Population consists of those people who might be directly affected by a decision, that is in this case students and teachers. 5. For effective implementation of a judicial decision, the first step is the members of the implementing population must act to show that they understand the decision. 6. Second requirement is that the implementing population must actually follow the courts policy. 7. Judicial decisions are more likely to be implemented smoothly if responsibility for implementation is concentrated in the hands of a few highly visible pubic officials such as president or governor. Yet, these people could also go against ( EX: governor of Little Rock Arkansa not allowing black students to attend all-white schools 8. The consumer population must be aware of the rights that a decision denies or grants. ( EX: teens seeking abortion are consumers of the high Court's decision on abortion)

Lobbying by IG'S

IG'S are very much active in Court nominees. Judge Robert H. Bork was so disliked by the Liberal Group that they launched campaign ads, print, and media against him. Stating how they hated his political belief and his role in the watergate scandal. This left him to not be picked in a vote 42-58. They (IG'S) are now getting involved in district and stat court nominations knowing that they have a high chance of becoming Supreme Court nominee some day.

How does a case survive the process

It is difficult to determine why the Court chose a certain case. The court does not offer reasons and the standard by which the Court chooses the case is highly personalized and necessarily descretionary. Yet, political scientists have tried to determine why the Court chooses a certain case? 1. The federal government is the party asking for the review 2. The case involves conflict among the courts of appeal 3. The case presents a civil rights or civil liberties question 4. The case involves the ideological or policy preference of the justices 5. The case has social or political interest, as evidenced by the presence of interest groups amicus briefs

How are federal courts selected?

Judges are nominated by the president and must be confirmed by the U.S. senate. Usually members of the nominating president's party usually are vetted through the senators office of the states where the district courts or court of appeals vacancy occurs. In the absence of a sentaor from the president's party, a member of the House from the sate could step in. In this process the president usually leave the choice up to the senators of their own party who represent the states where the vacancy occurs.

Structure and Components of the American Legal System

Judicial branch could be described as dual system consisting of federal court system and the judicial system of the fifty states, both systems are three-triered

The Conferences and the Vote

Justices meet in closed conferences twice a week when they are hearing oral arguments since ascendency of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the justices have started the conference with hand shaking. After the doors are closed no one is allowed to enter, the least senior member acts as the door keeper, communicating with the outside to get documents or water. 1. Conferences highlight to power of the Chief Justices who presides over them and makes the initial presentation of each case 2. Each justice's than going by seniority makes or discuss the case. 3. During this decision making other justices try to persuade others of their opinion, yet some already come in with their minds made up. 4. During Rehnquist Court each justice spoke once and they voted the same time they discussed. Initial conference vote were not final and justices could change their vote for final votes later 5. The Robert Court is much more informal, the justices now last longer and unlike Rehnquist Court Roberts encourages discussions.

The strategic model

Justices temper legal doctrine and their own policy beliefs with concerns about how the internal and external variables will affect and be affected by their decisions 1. Compared to the attitudinal model, the strategical model says that justices are prospective thinkers who act and achieve their policy and personal goal over the long term. 2. Scholars have found lots of evidence for this, they found out that justices are strategic ont heir vote for certiorari, justices will decide not to hear the case if they know they are going to lose in the final decision no matter how interesting the case is. 3. Chief justices often assign final opinions to justices based on their organizational need of the Court. 4. Justices pay attention to colleagues when crafting majority opinions 5. High Court seems to be responsive to public opinion, other courts, and other intitutions

Judiciary Act of 1789

Legislative act that established the basic three-tiered structure of the federal court system. At the bottom were the federal district courts at least one in each state. If people in the lawsuit (litigants) were not happy with the district's courts vedic they could appeal. The third tier was the size of the supreme court, since a szie was not mentioned in the constitution, in the Judiciary Act congress sets the size at six including the chief justice. Was reduced to five in 1801, but later in 1869 it turned out to be nine. Also endorsed by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78

The Supreme Court Today

Many Americans do not know much when it comes to the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only is it America's lack of interest, but the Court has also kept private in sense of decorum.

Model of Judicial Decision Making

Most political scientists say a variety of factors shape the Court's decision making. Most tried to make a model of how justices vote to offer a more complete picture on how they make decisions. Many of the models try to take into account judges behavioral characteristics and attitudes as well as the face patterns of cases. The explanation of these models is difficult and and their careers on building these models are not their inadequacies. The dynamic of the court and the presumed political value often wrecks havoc into these models.

Ideology or political preference

Most president's pick people who have the same views as them.

Competence

Need to have some sort of experience, but does not have to be in law. So all except one have had judicial experience

How effective was the court in the early days

Not effective, even though they had a black elegant cloak attire. the first court was John Jay's and he was appointed by Washington. The first case was adjourned when only less than half of the justices attended. In earlier years may people viewed the states more powerful than the national government, one supreme court judge went off to join the South Carolina supreme court.

Public Opnion

Not only do justices hear legal briefs and hear oral arguments, they watch television, read news papers and have some knowledge about public opinion specially in controversial issues. 1. Public opinion could act as a check on the supreme court and as an energizing factor. 2. Activist periods on the High Court generally have corresponded to period of social or economic crisis (EX: Marshall Court the court supported a strong national government when many people were pro-state , similarly the court capitulated to political pressure and public opinion when it reversed many of its early decisions that had blocked FDR's New deal programs) 3. The courts especially the High Court could be the target of public opinion. (Ex: in Webster vs Reproductive Health Service was about to come before the court, the court was subjected to unprecedented lobbying, as both sides sent appeal to the court and the mail also rose from 1,000 to 46,000 paralyzing normal lines of communication) 4. The court could also influence public opinion ( EX: Studies show that the Court's ruling on cases controversial cases such as abortion or capital punishment, positively influences the public in the direction of the courts opinion. Yet, they also found subsequent decisions have no effect. 5. Court depends o public for its prestige as well as for compliance with its decisions. ( EX: in times of war for example the court has made decisions in ways that communicators have attributed to the sway of public opinion and political exigencies. in Korematsu vs US, the court upheld the obvious unconstitutional internment of japanese, Italian, an German americans during WW11) 6. Public support for the Court was highest after the Court issued US vs Nixon.

Federal Government

One of the most important cases vues from predicting whether the Court will hear a case is the solicitor general's position. The solicitor general appointed by the president , is the fourth-raking member of the department of Justices, and is responsible for handling nearly all appeals on behalf of the the U.S. government to the Supreme Court. The Solicitor area looks like a specialized law firm within the dep. pf Justices. Because this team has a special relationship with the Supreme Court, they have a suite of offices within the Supreme court building. They are often referred to the "nth and half member:. Yet since the Solicitor General on behalf of the Us. Government, appears as a party, or as an amicus curiae or friend of the court is present in at least 50 percent of the cases heard by the supreme court each term. Amici may file briefs or even appear to argue their interest orally before the Court. The specialized relationship helps to overwhelming success the solicitor general's office enjoys before the Supreme Court. Court accepts about 70-80% cases the U.S. government petitions partying compared to 5% of the others. Yet, because of the special relationship the general usually ends up playing two roles representing in Court both the president's policy interests and the broader interest of the U.S. At times Solicitors find these roles hard to reconcile.

Judicial Philosophy , Original Intent, and Ideology

One of the primary issues when it comes to decision making is called activism/restraint debates.

Two types of Jurisdiction

Original Jurisdiction: (refers to a court's authority to hear and dispute as a trial court, these courts determine the facts of the case Appellate Jurisdiction: ( refers to a courts ability to review and/ or revise cases already decided by a trial court. DO NOT review the factual record they look at legal procedures to make sure the law was applied correctly, generally in panels of three judges)

Judicial Review

Power of the courts to review acts of other branches of government and the states (The constitution is silent over this ) it was not resolved until Marbury vs Madison (1803) regarding acts of the national government and Martin vs Lessee (1816) regarding acts of the state law

Chisholm vs Georgia

The court interpreted the court's jurisdiction under Article III Section 2 to include a citizen from one state could bring on a lawsuit against a different state. Because of this state's felt this was an attack on their authority which led to the ratification of the 11 Amendment which limited judicial power by stating

The Court of Appeal

The losing party heard and decided on by the federal district courts could then appeal the decision to the appropriate court of appeal. 1. The U.S. court of appeal also known as circuit courts appeal, there are currently 11 numbered courts of appeal, the 12th U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC circuit, handles most appeals involving federal regulatory commissions and agencies, ( Ex: National Labor Relations Board and the Securities and Exchange Commissions). The 13th federal appeals court is the U.S. Court of Appeals or the Federal Circuit, which deals with patents and financial claims against the federal government. 2. The number of judges vary depending on the workload and the complexity of the cases and range from 6 to nearly 13. 3. Each court is supervised by a Chief judge, the most senior judge in terms of service and and below the age of 65 who could serve no more than 7 years. 4. In deciding cases judges are divided into rotating three panels. This is made up of the acting judge, the visiting judge (primarily district judge from same same court), and retired judge. In rare cases all three judges may decide to sit together (en banc) to decide a case my majority vote. 5. They have no original jurisdiction, congress has granted them appellate jurisdiction over two general categories of cases: appeals of civil and criminal cases of district courts and appeals from administrative agencies. 6. Once a decisions is made by a court of appeals a litigant as no longer a right to appeal. The losing party may submit a petition to the U.S. supreme court to hear the case, but the courts grant few requests. 7. The court of appeal than is the last resort to all litigations, however most trials don't go farther than district level 8. Courts of appeals try to correct errors of law and procedures that have occurred in lower courts or administrative agencies. 9. Decisions by the court of appeals is only binded to that geographic confines. Decisions by the supreme court are established throughout the nation

The confirmation Process

The nominations are referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, they investigate the nominees, old hearings, and vote to send to the senate. At the point the committee could reject or vote yes to move the on. A simple majority vote is then needed by the senate to confirm them.

Appellate Courts

These courts are in the middle ( courts that generally review only findings of law made by lower court)

Deciding to Hear a Case

They take on courts having to deal with Bill of Rights, interpretation of the Constitution. The Court could also exercise a significant role in policy making and politics by not opting to hear a case. The case has two types of jurisdictions . The Court has original jurisdiction in "all Cases affecting the Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party". It is rare for more than four to five cases of these to come to court in a year. Yet, the second one the court enjoys it the appellate jurisdiction. This should be mostly used to deal with important issues of law or what is called "a substantial federal question"

Race, Ethnicity, Gender

Through 2010, only two blacks have served on the court and three women.

Judicial Restraint

a philosophy of judicial decision making that posits the court should allow the decision of other branches of government to stand, even when they offend judge's own principles 1. Restraintists defend their position by asserting that the federal courts are composed of unelected judges, which make the judicial branch the least democratic branch of the government. 2. They also refer to Roe vs Wade , the case that liberalized abortion laws, as a classical example of judicial activism, they said the court should have deferred the policy making on this sensitive issue to the states or elected branches of government. 3. They argue that the judges should be strict constitutionalists, when looking into a law or policy they should rely on the explicit meanings of the clauses n the document, which can be clarified by looking at founding documents .

Article III Section 3

defines treason and mandates that at least two witnesses appear in cases