Judiciary Branch PSC 101

Which Article of the US Constitution outlines the Judicial Branch? What does this Article tell us about the organization of the judiciary? Why was the Judiciary Act of 1789 needed, and what does the Act define?

1. Article III of the US Constitution outlines the Judicial Branch

2. Article III establishes the Supreme Court and allows Congress to create other inferior courts, defining their jurisdiction and the tenure of justices

3. The Judiciary Act of 1789 was necessary to establish the federal judiciary system to operate alongside state courts. The Act defines the structure and jurisdiction of the federal court system, including the number of justices on the Supreme Court and the creation of lower federal courts.

What differences exist between federal courts, the US Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court of the United States? Define two key points for each.

1. Federal courts handle cases involving federal law, including constitutional issues and federal statutes.

   They have jurisdiction over cases involving parties from different states and disputes exceeding

2. The US Circuit Court of Appeals hears appeals from the federal district courts and from some federal administrative agencies

   They do not conduct trials but review the record of the lower court’s proceedings to determine if there were errors in the application of law.

3. The supreme Court is the highest court in the United States and has the ultimate authority in interpreting the Constitution

   It reviews cases from the US Circuit Courts of Appeals and state supreme courts, often focusing on cases of significant constitutional importance or conflicting decisions among the lower courts.

How does a civil law tradition differ from a common law tradition? Which tradition does the US use? How does this affect the outcome of judicial decisions in the United States (In other words, why does it matter?)

1. A civil law tradition relies on written laws and codes, while a common law tradition is based on precedents set by previous court decisions

2. The United States uses a common law tradition where judicial decisions are influenced by the outcomes of prior cases.

3. This matters because, in a common law system, judges rely on precedent to guide their decisions, which can lead to more consistency and predictability in legal outcomes, but may also low in outdated interpretations of the law.

Identify and define four informal requirements for a case to be brought to the Supreme Court. Why have these barriers been put in place?

1. Standing: The party bringing the case must have a legitimate interest in the matter, having suffered an injury or harm

   Mootness: The case must present an ongoing issue; if the issue has been resolved or is no longer relevant, it is considered moot.

   Ripeness: The case must be ready for litigation, meaning the issues have developed to a point where judicial review is appropriate.

   “Political Question” Doctrine: The Supreme Court often refrains from adjudicating cases that involve political questions inappropriate for judicial resolution.

2. These barriers have been put in place to ensure that the Supreme Court only hears cases that present significant legal issues and to avoid the Court getting involved in matters more appropriately handled by other branches of government.

What is judicial review, and why is it a key safeguard of the democratic process? Is this power found in the US Constitution?

1. Judicial review is the power of the courts to examine the actions of legislative and executive branches of government to determine if they are consistent with the Constitution.

2. It ensures that laws and governmental actions do not violate the rights enshrined in the Constitution, protecting individual freedoms and maintaining the rule of law.

3. No, the power of judicial review is not explicitly stated in the US Constitution; it was established through court cases, notably Marbury v. Madison (1803).

What are the differences between a majority, concurring, and dissenting opinion? Which of these carry legal weight and which do not?

1. A majority opinion is the official statement of the Court that reflects the views of more than half of the justices. It carries legal weight and sets a binding precedent for lower courts.

2. A Concurring opinion is written by one or more justices who agree with the majority’s conclusion but for different reasons. While it does not carry the same legal weight as a majority opinion, it can provide insight into the reasoning behind the decision.

3. A dissenting opinion is written by justices who disagree with the majority’s ruling. Dissenting opinions do not carry legal weight but can be influential in future cases or legal thought.

What is the difference between a strict constructionist perspective, an originalist perspective, and a modern perspective for justices?

1. A strict constructionist perspective advocates that the Constitution should be interpreted literally and narrowly, adhering closely to the text as it was originally written.

2. An originalist perspective holds that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the original understanding at the time it was ratified, considering the intentions of the framers.

3. A modern perspective allows for a more flexibly interpretation of the Constitution, taking into account contemporary societal values and circumstances, aiming to address current issues.

What are the three characteristics that differentiate judicial activism and judicial restraint?

1. Approach to Constitutional Interpretation: Judicial activism embraces a broad interpretation of the Constitution, allowing for evolving interpretations, while judicial restraint favors a narrow, literal interpretation of the text.

2. Role of the Court: Judicial activism sees the court as an arbiter of social change and protector of individual rights, whereas judicial restraint views the court primarily as an interpreter of laws, deferring to legislative intent.

3. Impact on Policies: Judicial activism often results in significant changes to public policy, while judicial restraint tends to uphold existing laws, deferring to legislative intent.

Identify key aspects of the relationship between Congress, the Court, and the President in terms of both the separation of powers and also checks and balances.

1. Congress can check the power of the President through its authority to pass legislation, override vetoes with a 2/3 majority, control budget allocations, and impeach or remove the President from office.

2. The Court interprets laws passed by Congress and can rule on the constitutionality of actions taken by the President, thus ensuring that both branches do not exceed their constitutional authority.

3. The President influences Congress by proposing legislation, using the veto power, and exerting pressure through public appeals and political leverage to advance their policy agenda.

Define and describe two perceived benefits and two drawbacks to judicial elections at the state level (assuming a non-partisan election); describe the possible benefits of the remedy discussed in lecture that many states have adopted.

1. Accountability (Benefit): Judicial elections can enhance accountability, as judges are directly answerable to the voters, making them more likely to consider public opinion in their rulings.

2. Public Engagement (Benefit): Elections can promote public engagement in the judicial process, encouraging citizens to inform themselves about judicial candidate and their views, which can lead to a more informed electorate.

3. Influence of Special Interests (Drawback): Judicial elections may open the door to influence from special interest groups who can fund campaigns, potentially affecting the impartiality and integrity of judges.

4. Campaigning Pressure (Drawback): Judges may face pressure to make decisions that align with popular opinion or campaign donors, which could undermine their role as impartial adjudicators of the law.

5. Possible Benefit of the Remedy: Retention Elections: Many states have adopted retention elections, allowing voters to decide whether a judge should remain in office after a term. This can help mitigate the influence of special interests while still holding judges accountable to the public, as it combines elements of appointment with the accountability of an election.

United States Supreme Court Justices can be removed (or leave) from the bench by (Select all that apply)

1. resignation

2. Impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate

3. death

As noted in lecture, an independent judiciary is important to a representative democracy because (Check all that apply)

Presidents may try to act in an unconstitutional manner

Federal judges are assigned to life tenure in order to

free them from political pressures

As noted in lecture, the United States Supreme Court (select all that apply)

1. decides policy on abortion, criminal procedures, and property rights

2. is an important check on the powers of both the presidency and Congress

3. plays a significant role in determining the line between federal and state powers.

As noted in lecture, which of the following is essential for having a case heard by the Supreme Court (Select ALL that apply)

1. justiciability

2. ripeness

3. standing

4. a non-moot case

Supreme Court opinions written by justices who agree with the outcome of a case BUT NOT the legal reasoning are called ___ while opinions written by justices who disagree with the outcome and the legal reasoning are called ___

1. Concurring opinions

2. Dissenting opinions

The fact that the Supreme Court has struck down state statutes (laws) that supported segregation policy is a form of

judicial activism

The majority opinion of the Court

sets forth the reasoning upon which the ruling was based.

As noted in lecture, the concept of judicial review is ___ in the Constitution of the United States

not mentioned

As discussed in lecture, if Congress wished to “check and balance” the power of the Court, it could (Check all that apply)

1. impeach justices who may commit “high crimes and misdemeanors”

2. attempt to pass a constitutional amendment overturning the decision of the Court

3. alter the number of Supreme Court justices on the bench

Assuming Congress disagrees with a decision made by the Supreme Court of the United States, they could

Propose an amendment to the Constitution that would regulate the court’s ruling

A notable feature about checks and balances involving the Court and the Executive Branch is that

The Supreme Court is unable to enforce its decisions without the aid of the executive branch.