Government - Chapter 13 the courts
48. How are judges selected and confirmed?
At the federal level, the president nominates a candidate to a judgeship or justice position, and the nominee must be confirmed by a majority vote in the U.S. Senate, a function of the Senate's "advice and consent" role. All judges and justices in the national courts serve lifetime terms of office. The president sometimes chooses nominees from a list of candidates maintained by the American Bar Association, a national professional organization of lawyers.39 The president's nominee is then discussed (and sometimes hotly debated) in the Senate Judiciary Committee. After a committee vote, the candidate must be confirmed by a majority vote of the full Senate. He or she is then sworn in, taking an oath of office to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States.
14. What is the country of origin of the common law?
England/britain
73. What is a concurring opinion?
If a justice agrees with the outcome of the case but not with the majority's reasoning in it, that justice may write a concurring opinion. an opinion written by a justice who agrees with the Court's majority opinion but has different reasons for doing so
46. What is stare decisis?
(Latin for stand by things decided), which means that today's decisions are based largely on rulings from the past, and tomorrow's rulings rely on what is decided today. Stare decisis is especially important in the U.S. common law system, in which the consistency of precedent ensures greater certainty and stability in law and constitutional interpretation, and it also contributes to the solidity and legitimacy of the court system itself. As former Supreme Court justice Benjamin Cardozo summarized it years ago, "Adherence to precedent must then be the rule rather than the exception if litigants are to have faith in the even-handed administration of justice in the courts."37
55. As of 2019, how many Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican presidents and how many were appointed by Democratic presidents?
5 Republicans and 4 Democrats
56. As of 2019, how many of the justices on the Court are considered conservative and how many are considered liberal?
5 considered conservative 4 considered liberal
34. What is a diversity of citizenship case?
A dispute between two parties not from the same state or nation and in which damages of at least $75,000 are claimed is handled at the federal level. Such a case is known as a diversity of citizenship case.28
77. How do the personal beliefs and attitudes of judges affect judicial decision-making?
A judge or justice who views the role with an activist lens is more likely to use his or her judicial power to broaden personal liberty, justice, and equality. Judicial restraint- These justices are less likely to strike down actions or laws as unconstitutional and are less likely to focus on the expansion of individual liberties. Although we may prefer to believe a justice can leave political ideology or party identification outside the doors of the courtroom, the reality is that a more liberal-thinking judge may tend to make more liberal decisions and a more conservative-leaning judge may tend toward more conservative ones. Although this is not true 100 percent of the time, and an individual's decisions are sometimes a cause for surprise, the influence of ideology is real, and at a minimum, it often guides presidents to aim for nominees who mirror their own political or ideological image. It is likely not possible to find a potential justice who is completely apolitical.
75. What happens if the vote among the justices on a case is tied, say 4 to 4?
A tied vote is rare but can occur at a time of vacancy, absence, or abstention from a case, perhaps where there is a conflict of interest. In the event of a tied vote, the decision of the lower court stands.
33. Does the federal court system or state court systems hear more cases?
Although the Supreme Court tends to draw the most public attention, it typically hears fewer than one hundred cases every year. In fact, the entire federal side—both trial and appellate—handles proportionately very few cases, with about 90 percent of all cases in the U.S. court system being heard at the state level.27 The several hundred thousand cases handled every year on the federal side pale in comparison to the several million handled by the states.
30. How do cases reach the U.S. Supreme Court?
Cases heard by the U.S. Supreme Court come from two primary pathways: (1) the circuit courts, or U.S. courts of appeals (after the cases have originated in the federal district courts), and (2) state supreme courts (when there is a substantive federal question in the case).
43. How many courts of appeals justices typically hear a case?
Each court is overseen by a rotating panel of three judges who do not hold trials but instead review the rulings of the trial (district) courts within their geographic circuit.
32. What is the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor?
Crimes are usually labeled felonies or misdemeanors based on their nature and seriousness; felonies are the more serious crimes. When someone commits a criminal act, the government (state or national, depending on which law has been broken) charges that person with a crime, and the case brought to court contains the name of the charging government, as in Miranda v. Arizona
64. Under what circumstances is the Supreme Court most likely to grant certiorari?
For decisions about cert., the Court's Rule 10 (Considerations Governing Review on Writ of Certiorari) takes precedence.50 The Court is more likely to grant certiorari when there is a conflict on an issue between or among the lower courts. Examples of conflicts include (1) conflicting decisions among different courts of appeals on the same matter, (2) decisions by an appeals court or a state court conflicting with precedent, and (3) state court decisions that conflict with federal decisions. Occasionally, the Court will fast-track a case that has special urgency, such as Bush v. Gore in the wake of the 2000 election.51
18. How has the Supreme Court ruled on issues surrounding the implementation of the Affordable Care Act?
It faced a setback in 2014, for instance, when the Supreme Court ruled in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that, for religious reasons, some for-profit corporations could be exempt from the requirement that employers provide insurance coverage of contraceptives for their female employees.15 But the ACA also attained a victory in King v. Burwell, when the Court upheld the ability of the federal government to provide tax credits for people who bought their health insurance through an exchange created by the law.16 With each ACA case it has decided, the Supreme Court has served as the umpire, upholding the law and some of its provisions on one hand, but ruling some aspects of it unconstitutional on the other. Both supporters and opponents of the law have claimed victory and faced defeat. In each case, the Supreme Court has further defined and fine-tuned the law passed by Congress and the president, determining which parts stay and which parts go, thus having its say in the way the act has manifested itself, the way it operates, and the way it serves its public purpose.
15. How does common law compare with code law?
It stands in contrast to code law systems, which provide very detailed and comprehensive laws that do not leave room for much interpretation and judicial decision-making. With code law in place, as it is in many nations of the world, it is the job of judges to simply apply the law. But under common law, as in the United States, they interpret it. Often referred to as a system of judge-made law, common law provides the opportunity for the judicial branch to have stronger involvement in the process of law-making itself, largely through its ruling and interpretation on a case-by-case basis.
1. Which branch of government received the LEAST attention in the Constitution?
Judicial
12. What is the significance of Marbury v. Madison?
Judicial review was established in the Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison, when, for the first time, the Court declared an act of Congress to be unconstitutional.9 Wielding this power is a role Marshall defined as the "very essence of judicial duty," and it continues today as one of the most significant aspects of judicial power. Judicial review lies at the core of the court's ability to check the other branches of government—and the states.
37. What happened to Miranda after the Supreme Court heard his case?
Miranda's original conviction was overturned.
66. What proportion of cases heard by the Supreme Court involves the federal government?
Most of the cases the solicitor general brings to the Court will be given a place on the docket. About two-thirds of all Supreme Court cases involve the federal government.54
10. Who was John Marshall? Why is he important in the history of the Supreme Court?
Often credited with defining the modern court, clarifying its power, and strengthening its role, Marshall served in the chief's position for thirty-four years. One
36. Why did the Supreme Court decide to hear the case of Miranda v. Arizona?
On appeal first to the Arizona Supreme Court and then to the U.S. Supreme Court to exclude the confession on the grounds that its admission was a violation of his constitutional rights, Miranda won the case. By a slim 5-4 margin, the justices ruled that the confession had to be excluded from evidence because in obtaining it, the police had violated Miranda's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. Miranda's story is a good example of the tandem operation of the state and federal court systems. His guilt or innocence of the crimes was a matter for the state courts, whereas the constitutional questions raised by his trial were a matter for the federal courts.
How many justices serve on the U.S. Supreme Court?
On the U.S. Supreme Court, there are nine justices—one chief justice and eight associate justices.
80. Which president was associated with the court-packing plan?
President Franklin D. Roosevelt even attempted to stack the odds in his favor in 1937, with a "court-packing scheme" in which he tried to get a bill passed through Congress that would have reorganized the judiciary and enabled him to appoint up to six additional judges to the high court
50. Do presidents try to choose justices whose judicial philosophies match their own? Are they ever surprised by the subsequent decisions of their nominees?
Presidential nominees for the courts typically reflect the chief executive's own ideological position. some nominees turn out to be surprises or end up ruling in ways that the president who nominated them did not anticipate. Democratic-appointed judges sometimes side with conservatives, just as Republican-appointed judges sometimes side with liberals. Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower reportedly called his nomination of Earl Warren as chief justice—in an era that saw substantial broadening of civil and criminal rights—"the biggest damn fool mistake" he had ever made. Sandra Day O'Connor, nominated by Republican president Ronald Reagan, often became a champion for women's rights. David Souter, nominated by Republican George H. W. Bush, more often than not sided with the Court's liberal wing. Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee who retired in the summer of 2018, was notorious as the Court's swing vote, sometimes siding with the more conservative justices but sometimes not. Current chief justice John Roberts, though most typically an ardent member of the Court's more conservative wing, has twice voted to uphold provisions of the Affordable Care Act.
49. Who were President Obama's nominees to the Supreme Court?
Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan,
25. How have the courts expanded rights when other branches and units of government have failed to act? What are some examples?
Supreme Court decisions have made all these possibilities a reality, a particularly important one for the individuals who become the beneficiaries (Table 13.1). The judicial branch has often made decisions the other branches were either unwilling or unable to make, and Hamilton was right in Federalist No. 78 when he said that without the courts exercising their duty to defend the Constitution, "all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing." Brown v. Board of Education (1954) --Public schools must be desegregated. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Poor criminal defendants must be provided an attorney. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Criminal suspects must be read their rights. Roe v. Wade(1973) Women have a constitutional right to abortion. McDonald v. Chicago (2010) An individual has the right to a handgun in his or her home. Riley v. California (2014) Police may not search a cell phone without a warrant. Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) Same-sex couples have the right to marry in all states.
21. What is the significance of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby?
Supreme Court ruled in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that, for religious reasons, some for-profit corporations could be exempt from the requirement that employers provide insurance coverage of contraceptives for their female employees.
81. Who enforces court rulings?
The Court relies on the executive to implement or enforce its decisions and on the legislative branch to fund them.
61. About what percentage of the cases appealed to the Supreme Court does it actually hear?
The Court typically accepts fewer than 2 percent of the as many as ten thousand cases it is asked to review every year.
59. When is the Court in session?
The Supreme Court begins its annual session on the first Monday in October and ends late the following June.
63. What is the rule of four?
The Supreme Court exercises discretion in the cases it chooses to hear, but four of the nine justices must vote to accept a case. This is called the Rule of Four.
20. What is the adversarial nature of the judicial system?
The adversarial judicial system comes from the common law tradition: In a court case, it is one party versus the other, and it is up to an impartial person or group, such as the judge or jury, to determine which party prevails. The federal court system is most often called upon when a case touches on constitutional rights. For example, when Samantha Elauf, a Muslim woman, was denied a job working for the clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch because a headscarf she wears as religious practice violated the company's dress code, the Supreme Court ruled that her First Amendment rights had been violated, making it possible for her to sue the store for monetary damages.
26. How do courts develop their rulings over time, such as the rulings on the death penalty?
The courts seldom if ever grant rights to a person instantly and upon request. In a number of cases, they have expressed reluctance to expand rights without limit, and they still balance that expansion with the government's need to govern, provide for the common good, and serve a broader societal purpose. For example, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty, ruling that the Eighth Amendment does not prevent a person from being put to death for committing a capital crime and that the government may consider "retribution and the possibility of deterrence" when it seeks capital punishment for a crime that so warrants it.21 In other words, there is a greater good—more safety and security—that may be more important than sparing the life of an individual who has committed a heinous crime. Yet the Court has also put limits on the ability to impose the death penalty, ruling, for example, that the government may not execute a person with cognitive disabilities, a person who was under eighteen at the time of the crime, or a child rapist who did not kill his victim.22 So the job of the courts on any given issue is never quite done, as justices continuously keep their eye on government laws, actions, and policy changes as cases are brought to them and then decide whether those laws, actions, and policies can stand or must go. Even with an issue such as the death penalty, about which the Court has made several rulings, there is always the possibility that further judicial interpretation of what does (or does not) violate the Constitution will be needed.
13.4 How many justices serve on the Supreme Court? How is that number set?
The original court in 1789 had six justices, but Congress set the number at nine in 1869, and it has remained there ever since. There is one chief justice, who is the lead or highest-ranking judge on the Court, and eight associate justices. All nine serve lifetime terms, after successful nomination by the president and confirmation by the Senate.
6. What is the organization of the judicial branch? How was it established?
The first session of the first U.S. Congress laid the framework for today's federal judicial system, established in the Judiciary Act of 1789. Although legislative changes over the years have altered it, the basic structure of the judicial branch remains as it was set early on: At the lowest level are the district courts, where federal cases are tried, witnesses testify, and evidence and arguments are presented. A losing party who is unhappy with a district court decision may appeal to the circuit courts, or U.S. courts of appeals, where the decision of the lower court is reviewed. Still further, appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is possible, but of the thousands of petitions for appeal, the Supreme Court will typically hear fewer than one hundred a year.3
13.3 What is precedent?
The precedent set by each ruling, particularly by the Supreme Court's decisions, both builds on principles and guidelines set by earlier cases and frames the ongoing operation of the courts, steering the direction of the entire system. Reliance on precedent has enabled the federal courts to operate with logic and consistency that has helped validate their role as the key interpreters of the Constitution and the law—a legitimacy particularly vital in the United States where citizens do not elect federal judges and justices but are still subject to their rulings.
79. How does the president affect judicial decision-making?
The president can leave a lasting imprint on the bench through his or her nominations, even long after leaving office. The president may also influence the Court through the solicitor general's involvement or through the submission of amicus briefs in cases in which the United States is not a party.
41. What are the courts of appeals and what are their procedures?
There are thirteen U.S. courts of appeals, or circuit courts, eleven across the nation and two in Washington, DC (the DC circuit and the federal circuit courts), as illustrated in Figure 13.6. Each court is overseen by a rotating panel of three judges who do not hold trials but instead review the rulings of the trial (district) courts within their geographic circuit.
65. Who is the solicitor general?
The solicitor general is the lawyer who represents the federal government before the Supreme Court: He or she decides which cases (in which the United States is a party) should be appealed from the lower courts and personally approves each one presented (Figure 13.11).
40. What are district courts and what are their procedures?
There are ninety-four U.S. district courts in the fifty states and U.S. territories, of which eighty-nine are in the states (at least one in each state). The others are in Washington, DC; Puerto Rico; Guam; the U.S. Virgin Islands; and the Northern Mariana Islands. These are the trial courts of the national system, in which federal cases are tried, witness testimony is heard, and evidence is presented. No district court crosses state lines, and a single judge oversees each one. Some cases are heard by a jury, and some are not.
78. How does public opinion affect court rulings?
Though somewhat isolated from politics and the volatility of the electorate, justices may still be swayed by special-interest pressure, the leverage of elected or other public officials, the mass media, and the general public. As times change and the opinions of the population change, the court's interpretation is likely to keep up with those changes, lest the courts face the danger of losing their own relevance.
31. What is the difference between criminal law and civil law?
Under criminal law, governments establish rules and punishments; laws define conduct that is prohibited because it can harm others and impose punishment for committing such an act. civil law cases involve two or more private (non-government) parties, at least one of whom alleges harm or injury committed by the other.
3. What is original jurisdiction and does the Supreme Court have it?
Under original jurisdiction, a case is heard for the first time, The Constitution also limits the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to those rare cases of disputes between states, or between the United States and foreign ambassadors or ministers.
2. What is the difference between original and appellate jurisdiction?
Under original jurisdiction, a case is heard for the first time, whereas under appellate jurisdiction, a court hears a case on appeal from a lower court and may change the lower court's decision.
52. How diverse is the membership of the Supreme Court?
What was once a predominately White, male, Protestant institution is today much more diverse. First Catholic Roger B. Taney (nominated in 1836) First Jew Louis J. Brandeis (1916) First (and only) former U.S. President William Howard Taft (1921) First African American Thurgood Marshall (1967) First Woman Sandra Day O'Connor (1981) First Hispanic American Sonia Sotomayor (2009)
71. What is conference?
When oral arguments have been concluded, the justices have to decide the case, and they do so in conference, which is held in private twice a week when the Court is in session and once a week when it is not. The conference is also a time to discuss petitions for certiorari, but for those cases already heard, each justice may state his or her views on the case, ask questions, or raise concerns. The chief justice speaks first about a case, then each justice speaks in turn, in descending order of seniority, ending with the most recently appointed justice.59 The judges take an initial vote in private before the official announcement of their decisions is made public.
67. Who is the "tenth justice?"
With such power over the Court, the solicitor general is sometimes referred to as "the tenth justice."
11. What is judicial review?
a power to which Hamilton had referred but that is not expressly mentioned in the Constitution. Judicial review is the power of the courts, as part of the system of checks and balances, to look at actions taken by the other branches of government and the states and determine whether they are constitutional. If the courts find an action to be unconstitutional, it becomes null and void.
74. What is a dissenting opinion?
an opinion written by a justice who disagrees with the majority opinion of the Court. the most senior justice in the dissenting group can assign a member of that group to write the dissenting opinion; however, any justice who disagrees with the majority may write a separate dissenting opinion.
4. What is appellate jurisdiction and does the Supreme Court have it?
appellate jurisdiction, a court hears a case on appeal from a lower court and may change the lower court's decision. So, for the most part, the Supreme Court is an appeals court, operating under appellate jurisdiction and hearing appeals from the lower courts.
68. What are briefs?
briefs, or short arguments explaining each party's view of the case, must be submitted—first by the petitioner putting forth his or her case, then by the respondent.
17. What was the significance of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius?
challenged the constitutionality of ACA/Obamacare Act. hoping the Supreme Court would overturn it. The practice of judicial review enabled the law's critics to exercise this opportunity, even though their hopes were ultimately dashed when, by a narrow 5-4 margin, the Supreme Court upheld the health care law as a constitutional extension of Congress's power to tax.
16. Which form of law leaves more room for interpretation?
common law
42. Who or what determines how many district courts and courts of appeal operate in the United States?
congress
13.2 What is the dual court system?
courts at both the national and state levels. Both levels have three basic tiers consisting of trial courts, appellate courts, and finally courts of last resort, typically called supreme courts, at the top
7. How important was the Supreme Court in its first century of its existence?
difficulty of getting all the justices even to show up, and with no permanent home or building of its own for decades, finding its footing in the early days proved to be a monumental task. Even when the federal government moved to the nation's capital in 1800, the Court had to share space with Congress in the Capitol building. This ultimately meant that "the high bench crept into an undignified committee room in the Capitol beneath the House Chamber."4 It was not until the Court's 146th year of operation that Congress, at the urging of Chief Justice—and former president—William Howard Taft, provided the designation and funding for the Supreme Court's own building, "on a scale in keeping with the importance and dignity of the Court and the Judiciary as a coequal, independent branch of the federal government."5
60. What is the Court's docket?
docket, which is the list of cases scheduled on the Court's calendar.
44. What are the Court of International Trade, Court of Federal Claims, and U.S. Tax Court?
federal trial courts exist that have more specialized jurisdictions, such as the Court of International Trade, Court of Federal Claims, and U.S. Tax Court. Specialized federal appeals courts include the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Cases from any of these courts may also be appealed to the Supreme Court, although that result is very rare.
5. Which branch of government did Hamilton call the "least dangerous branch?" Why?
he said "interpretation" was a key role of the courts as they seek to protect people from unjust laws. But he also believed "the Judiciary Department" would "always be the least dangerous" because "with no influence over either the sword or the purse," it had "neither force nor will, but merely judgment." The courts would only make decisions, not take action. With no control over how those decisions would be implemented and no power to enforce their choices, they could exercise only judgment, and their power would begin and end there.
51. What is the term of office of a federal judge?
lifetime appointment
13.5 What is a majority opinion?
majority opinion, or explanation of the justices' decision, is the one with which a majority of the nine justices agree. It can represent a vote as narrow as five in favor to four against.
76. What is the difference between judicial activism and judicial restraint?
judicial activism, or the need to defend individual rights and liberties, and they aim to stop actions and laws by other branches of government that they see as infringing on these rights. Still others believe in judicial restraint, which leads them to defer decisions (and thus policymaking) to the elected branches of government and stay focused on a narrower interpretation of the Bill of Rights.
13. What is the common law?
law is largely developed through binding judicial decisions. With roots in medieval England, the system was inherited by the American colonies along with many other British traditions. (also known as judicial precedent or judge-made law, or case law) is the body of law created by judges and similar quasi-judicial tribunals by virtue of being stated in written opinions. The defining characteristic of "common law" is that it arises as precedent. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, a common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts
57. Are Supreme Court justices always consistently liberal or conservative?
no necessarily
70. What are oral arguments?
oral arguments, each side's lawyers have thirty minutes to make their legal case, though the justices often interrupt the presentations with questions. The justices consider oral arguments not as a forum for a lawyer to restate the merits of his or her case as written in the briefs, but as an opportunity to get answers to any questions they may have.58 When the United States is party to a case, the solicitor general (or one of his or her assistants) will argue the government's position; even in other cases, the solicitor general may still be given time to express the government's position on the dispute.
69. What are amicus curiae briefs?
people and groups that are not party to the case but are interested in its outcome may file an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief giving their opinion, analysis, and recommendations about how the Court should rule.
54. How are Supreme Court justices selected and what is the length of their term of office?
president and lifetime
58. What is the role of law clerks on the Court?
research, help prepare the justice with background information, and assist with the writing of opinions. The law clerks' work and recommendations influence whether the justices will choose to hear a case, as well as how they will rule. As the profile below reveals, the role of the clerks is as significant as it is varied. Review the cases: Clerks participate in a "cert. pool" (short for writ of certiorari, a request that the lower court send up its record of the case for review) and make recommendations about which cases the Court should choose to hear. Prepare the justices for oral argument: Clerks analyze the filed briefs (short arguments explaining each party's side of the case) and the law at issue in each case waiting to be heard. Research and draft judicial opinions: Clerks do detailed research to assist justices in writing an opinion, whether it is the majority opinion or a dissenting or concurring opinion. Help with emergencies: Clerks also assist the justices in deciding on emergency applications to the Court, many of which are applications by prisoners to stay their death sentences and are sometimes submitted within hours of a scheduled execution.
47. Are precedents ever overturned? Which court or courts plays the most important role in overturning precedent?
stare decisis dictates that they should be decided the same way, and judges are reluctant to disregard precedent without justification. However, that does not mean there is no flexibility or that new precedents or rulings can never be created. They often are. Certainly, court interpretations can change as times and circumstances change—and as the courts themselves change when new judges are selected and take their place on the bench.
24. What is the significance of Brown v. Board of Education?
the Court ordered desegregation in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), and even then, many stood in opposition and tried to block students at the entrances to all-White schools.
22. What is the significance of King v. Burwell?
the Court upheld the ability of the federal government to provide tax credits for people who bought their health insurance through an exchange created by the law.
38. What is the significance of Miranda v. Arizona?
the Supreme Court considered only the violation of Miranda's constitutional rights, but not whether he was guilty of the crimes with which he was charged. So there were still crimes committed for which Miranda had to face charges. He was therefore retried in state court in 1967, the second time without the confession as evidence, found guilty again based on witness testimony and other evidence, and sent to prison. systems. His guilt or innocence of the crimes was a matter for the state courts, whereas the constitutional questions raised by his trial were a matter for the federal courts.
19. What role do the courts play in modernizing the Constitution?
the courts have become the key interpreters of the U.S. Constitution, continuously interpreting it and applying it to modern times and circumstances. For example, it was in 2015 that we learned a man's threat to kill his ex-wife, written in rap lyrics and posted to her Facebook wall, was not a real threat and thus could not be prosecuted as a felony under federal law.17 Certainly, when the Bill of Rights first declared that government could not abridge freedom of speech, its framers could never have envisioned Facebook—or any other modern technology for that matter. But freedom of speech, just like many constitutional concepts, has come to mean different things to different generations, and it is the courts that have designed the lens through which we understand the Constitution in modern times. It is often said that the Constitution changes less by amendment and more by the way it is interpreted. Rather than collecting dust on a shelf, the nearly 230-year-old document has come with us into the modern age, and the accepted practice of judicial review has helped carry it along the way.
23. Why are the courts rather than other branches of government particularly important for members of minority groups who wish to seek redress of grievances?
the expansion of individual rights and liberties for particular persons or groups over the years has come about largely as a result of court rulings made for individuals on a case-by-case basis. Societal traditions, public opinion, and politics have often stood in the way of the full expansion of rights and liberties to different groups, and not everyone has agreed that these rights should be expanded as they have been by the courts.
9. Who was the first chief justice?
the first chief justice, John Jay, an author of The Federalist Papers and appointed by President George Washington,
8. What was the significance of Chisolm v. Georgia?
the justices ruled that the federal courts could hear cases brought by a citizen of one state against a citizen of another state, and that Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution did not protect the states from facing such an interstate lawsuit.6 However, their decision was almost immediately overturned by the Eleventh Amendment, passed by Congress in 1794 and ratified by the states in 1795. In protecting the states, the Eleventh Amendment put a prohibition on the courts by stating, "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." It was an early hint that Congress had the power to change the jurisdiction of the courts as it saw fit and stood ready to use it.
29. Are state courts organized the same way as federal courts are?
the state and federal court systems sometimes intersect and overlap each other, and no two states are exactly alike when it comes to the organization of their courts. Since a state's court system is created by the state itself, each one differs in structure, the number of courts, and even name and jurisdiction. Thus, the organization of state courts closely resembles but does not perfectly mirror the more clear-cut system found at the federal level.
28. What are the three basic tiers of the court system?
three basic tiers consisting of trial courts, appellate courts, and finally courts of last resort, typically called supreme courts, at the top
35. What sorts of cases are heard in federal courts?
will hear any case that involves a foreign government, patent or copyright infringement, Native American rights, maritime law, bankruptcy, or a controversy between two or more states. Cases arising from activities across state lines (interstate commerce) are also subject to federal court jurisdiction, as are cases in which the United States is a party. State Courts Hear most day-to-day cases, covering 90 percent of all cases Hear both civil and criminal matters Help the states retain their own sovereignty in judicial matters over their state laws, distinct from the national government Federal Courts Hear cases that involve a "federal question," involving the Constitution, federal laws or treaties, or a "federal party" in which the U.S. government is a party to the case Hear both civil and criminal matters, although many criminal cases involving federal law are tried in state courts Hear cases that involve "interstate" matters, "diversity of citizenship" involving parties of two different states, or between a U.S. citizen and a citizen of another nation (and with a damage claim of at least $75,000)
62. What is a writ of certiorari?
writ of certiorari, a request that the lower court send up its record of the case for review. Once a writ of certiorari (cert. for short) has been granted, the case is scheduled on the Court's docket.