1/51
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced |
---|
No study sessions yet.
Federalist 78: background info
Who wrote The Federalist No. 78?
Alexander HamiltonÂ
Where were the Federalist Papers published?
New YorkÂ
Why were the Federalist Papers written? (provide the historical context)
To convince people to ratify the new US constitution Â
Federalist 78: thesis/claim
An independent judiciary with life tenure during good behavior for federal judges is necessary for a good government
Federalist 78: Evidence/reasoning #1
Evidence #1: An independent judiciary with a life tenure during good behavior will help overcome the inherent weakness of the judicial branchÂ
Reasoning #1: The judicial branch needs to be independent from the other branches (that are given more power by the constitution) allowing them to serve more time allows for them to make less biased decisions.Â
Federalist 78: Evidence/reasoning #2
Evidence #2: An independent judiciary with a life tenure during good behavior will uphold the principle of limited governmentÂ
Reasoning #2: They need to be independent in order to not be influenced by the other branches, they arenât able to enforce limited government when they are influenced by the other branchesÂ
Federalist 78: Evidence/reasoning #3
Evidence #3: An independent judiciary with a life tenure during good behavior will stop the legislature from violating the constitution with abusive lawsÂ
Reasoning #3: The courts must be independent from the other branches to ensure that congress arenât passing unconstitutional lawsÂ
Federalist 78: Evidence/reasoning #4
Evidence #4: An independent judiciary with a life tenure during good behavior will best protect minority rights.Â
Reasoning #4: Allowing life tenure for the judges will allow for them to best protect the minority from the majorityÂ
What constitutional requirements are there in order to be eligible for a seat on the US supreme court?
none!!
What do presidents consider when nominating a federal judiciary?
Party affiliation
Judicial philosophy (how a judge interprets the constitution)
Demographics (gender, race, religion, age, etc)
Answers to political âlitmus testâ questionsÂ
Marbury v. Madison: background
Following the end of John Adams (federalist party) presidency, he tried to create 17 judicial commissions (that allowed for federalist judges to go onto the supreme court) he wanted to make this decision in order to create a majority of federalists on the court.Â
After Jefferson became president, and his secretary of state found the many judicial reviews left by the former presidency, and though these commissions were supposed to be sent out James Madison (the secretary of state) chose not to send out the commissions and give the federalists a majority on the court.Â
Marbury (one of the judges that was supposed to receive a judicial commission) found out that Madison refused to send out the commissions, and he decided to sue.
After the lawsuit was filed the democratic - republican congress controlled congress cancels the 4 month session of the supreme courtÂ
Marbury v. Madison: constitutional question/issue of the case
Does Marbury have a right to his commission, and can he sue the federal government for it?Â
Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order the delivery of the commission?
Marbury v. Madison: decision of the supreme court
The court ruled in favor of MadisonÂ
They voted for Madison because if they were to vote for Marbury the writ of mandamus would have to be issued to the executive branch, and they would choose to ignore it, which would prove that the supreme court has no real power.
Justice Marshall said that the judiciary act of 1789 is unconstitutional meaning that the court has no power to issue a writ of mandamusÂ
Marbury v. Madison: impact/results of the decision
It created the power of judicial review that the judicial branch can exerciseÂ
Limitations on the court's power of judicial review: Live controversy rule
a court will not consider hypothetical questionsÂ
Limitations on the court's power of judicial review: Standing to sue
the plaintiff (a person who brings a case against another in a court of law) in a case must show that the situation adversely affects their legal rights in a personal way
Limitations on the court's power of judicial review: Political questions
a court cannot hear cases involve political questions
Political questions = problems that defy resolution on legal/constitutional ground problems create intense political controversy, or when the court's decisions would be difficult to enforce (think of Baker v. Carr!!)
Limitations on the court's power of judicial review: Rules for interpretation
how the court should be involved / use their power
courts should not rule on constitutional issue unless the ruling is absolutely necessary to settle the caseÂ
If there are 2 interpretations of a law the court should always choose the interpretation that allows the law to be heldÂ
They should make their rulings on constitutional issues as narrow as possible and shouldnât decide issues immediately before any of the other lower courts (any âdictumâ is non-binding on future courts)Â
Jurisdiction
a court's power to hear and decide a particular caseÂ
Type of jurisdiction: Subject matter jurisdiction
the power to decide controversies that occur under a type of law (cases involving a states law are tired in that specific states court, whereas federal laws are tried in federal court)Â
Type of jurisdiction: Personal jurisdiction
the power over parties involved in the case based on where the parties live / do business / own property or where the events leading up to the case took place
Type of jurisdiction: Original/appellate jurisdiction
Â
Original = a court's power to hear and decide a case before any appellate review. A trial court necessarily has original jurisdiction over the types of cases it hearsÂ
Applelate = the power of a court to hear appeal from lower courts including the power to reverse or modify the lower court's decision
The only court with both original, and appellate jurisdiction is the supreme court
Characteristics of Trial courts
Are the first to hear a caseÂ
They attempt to establish the facts of a case (what happened)
Involves witnessesÂ
Involves evidence and exhibitsÂ
May use a jury to determine the outcome of a case (not always required)Â
Characteristics of Appellate courts
Review lower courts decisions to see if the lower courts made any errors of law
Only hear arguments about the law (not the facts of the case)Â
Only attorneys and judges speak during oral arguments in appellate courtÂ
No witnesses or new evidence can be presented in this type of court
What must a case have in order to reach the supreme court?
The case must involved a federal question (an issue of federal law thatâs typically connected to the constitution)
Common paths for cases that go to the Supreme CourtÂ
An appeal from federal court of appeals (most cases that make it to the supreme court come from the federal system)
An appeal from a state supreme court (only if the state case involved a federal question, this case is less common)
Writ of certiorari
an order by a higher court which directs a lower court to send up a case for review Â
Supreme court allows the lower courts to have the final say on a caseÂ
if 4/9 justices want to hear a case than the court will grant certÂ
Types of cases the supreme court most likely grant cert to: Circuit split
when 2 or more US circuit courts of appeals have rules different on the same issue (ex: 2 different courts, one supports gay marriage, the other opposes it)
Types of cases the supreme court most likely grant cert to: Significance of the issue
important and timely topics (usually social issues) â trump being able to go onto the ballot to run for the presidencyÂ
Types of cases the supreme court most likely grant cert to: The impact of a decision
the more the decision will impact people the more likely the court is to take the caseÂ
âIn exercising its discretion in granting certiorari, the Supreme Court is on the horns of a dilemma.â (from textbook)
The supreme court has limited time, so they cannot grant cert often but when they deny cert it allows the lower courts to have the final say on what the law means, which leaves room from conflicts in how laws are interpreted across the USÂ
What happens once the supreme court grants cert?Â
Attorneys from both sides of the case submit legal briefs to the supreme courtÂ
Legal brief = a written document made by attorneys that serves as the basis for an argument in an appellate court (it summarizes the legal arguments and authorities)
Amicus curiae brief (friend of the court)
written by a party that isnât a party in the case, for the purpose of raising additional legal arguments (that are not contained in the briefs of the parties) the briefs attempt to influence the courts decisionsÂ
Interest groups influence on cases
Filing amicus curiae briefs
Organizing cases (ex: the NAACP & brown v. board of education)Â
Lobbying for/ against judicial nominees (president or US senators)Â
Solicitor general
 A Lawyer that decides which lower court decisions the federal government will appeal, and argues cases before the supreme court when the federal government is a party for a case Â
Law clerks
help to judge/justice with their work, receiving petitions the court receives, researching case law, and helping to write opinionsÂ
Judicial review
the federal courts rights to declare that laws created by congress / acts of the executive branch are void when they are in conflict with the constitution
How can congress check the judicial branches power?
Can change the # of judgesÂ
With the help of the states congress can undo a supreme court's decision by interpreting the constitution and amending the document Â
Can decide the jurisdiction of the lower courtsÂ
Can impeach judgesÂ
Change the composition of the judges by controlling their appointment
Powers of the Chief Justice
Presides over oral argumentsÂ
Presides over private conferences / debates with other justicesÂ
Speaks first during deliberationsÂ
Votes last during deliberationsÂ
Assigns who will write the majority opinion (when the chief justice voted with the majority)Â
If the chief justice did not vote in the majority the most senior member of the court decides who will write the majority opinion
How to supreme courts decisions impact lower federal courts
Precedent = a decision made by a court that sets an example to be followed by other courts in the future
Decisions from higher courts create precedent that is binding for all lower courtsÂ
Stare decisis
when a higher court decided a case setting the precedent, causing all lower courts to follow that decision when the same issue is brought up later in a case before a lower court  Â
Only the supreme court is able to overrule past supreme court cases (to change the law
Opinions within the court: Majority opinion
a signed opinion of the majority of the judges participating in the decision (this is the ONLY opinion that has precedential value)Â
Makes a law â this is the law that all lower courts must followÂ
Opinions within the court: Concurring opinion
a signed opinion in which one or more justices agree with the majority decisions for different reasonsÂ
Doesnât make a law / no legal powerÂ
Opinions within the court: Dissenting opinionÂ
a signed opinion in which one or more justices disagree with the majority's decision on the case (and their reason are explained in the opinion)Â
Doesn't make a law / no legal powerÂ
Judicial activism
The view that judges should discern the general principles from underlying laws or the constitution and apply them to modern circumstancesÂ
Loose interpretation of the constitutionÂ
Followers of this philosophy are more likely to overrule past laws (court cases)
Ideas of judicial activism
Ideas:
The constitution should be reexamined and reinterpreted because of the difference between when the constitution was written vs modern timesÂ
Courts should play an active role in shaping public policy
Courts must act when other branches / states fail to correct injusticesÂ
Courts are a last resort to serve and protect for the powerlessÂ
Judicial restraintÂ
The view that judges should decide cases strictly on the basis of language of the laws & the constitution (should generally follow precedent)
Strict interpretation of the constitutionÂ
Followers of this philosophy are less likely to change past laws unless they specifically do NOT follow the constitutionÂ
Ideas of judicial restraint
It's not the job the judges to change laws through interpretation (its congressâs job)
The constitution should be interpreted as closely to the original meaning as possibleÂ
Courts should defer legislatures & exercise judicial review to overturn laws ONLY when there is a clear violation of the constitutionÂ
Courts shouldnât assure the legislatures responsibilities & should not become âunelected legislatorsâ by actively making / changing public policy with their decisionsÂ
Judges shouldnât interfere in areas where they lack expertise (congress is better prepared)
Independent judiciaryÂ
Supreme court justices serve for lifeÂ
The judicial branch does not have any shared power with the other branches of governmentÂ
Judges pay cannot be reducedÂ
Legislative branch checks on supreme court
Congress can impeach (the house) and remove (the senate) federal judges, including supreme court justices from the bench following the same process that is used for the president or vice presidentÂ
Congress can changed the # of composition of the federal courtsÂ
Congress can changed the jurisdiction of federal courts (restrict courts from hearing certain cases)
Congress can change the constitution (â of both house of congress must vote to propose it, ž states would need to ratify it)Â
Executive branch checks on supreme court
The president has the appointment power for all federal judges (including supreme court justicesÂ
The supreme court has no enforcement powers â the president can choose to enforce or to not enforce the courts decisionsÂ
How the people can check the supreme court
Elect legislators (if the court upholds an unpopular law the legislature can always change the law)Â Â
Join an interest group that organizes cases / writes amicus curiae briefsÂ
Call US senators and tell them to vote to confirm a new justice that will be likely to overturn the precedent or vote to reject a new justice that would uphold the precedentÂ
Elect a new president who would appoint justices that would be likely to overturn
 the precedentÂ
Other checks on Courts
Public opinion can restrict the supreme court: if the court blatantly disregards public opinion) which risks its legitimacyÂ
The supreme court is powerful partially because people respect the courts and believe that their decisions must be followedÂ
Steps to the Supreme Court
every case starts in a trial court (state or federal court â which law is the case involved in)
If one of the parties involved in the case disagrees with the judges decisions they can file an appeal and it would go to an appellate court (they do not have to accept your appeal)
Goes to the appellate court and they can either agree or disagree with the caseÂ
If they agree the lawyers from both sides will submit legal briefs (that explain their arguments)Â
Both parties will present the oral arguments to the court then the judge will decide which party winsÂ
Who ever gets the most votes wins (either overturn and changed the case, or uphold the lower court's decision)
If one of the parties is unhappy with the outcome of the case they can appeal to the supreme courtÂ
The supreme court can choose to or to not accept the the party's appeal (the court follows the rule of 4 meaning that if 4 judges want to hear the case then they will)Â
Both parties will present the oral arguments to the court then the judge will decide which party winsÂ
Who ever gets the most votes wins (either overturn and changed the case, or uphold the lower court's decision)