judiciary branch

original jurisdiction

where the case in heard first, usually in trial

appellate jurisdiction

cases brought on appeal from a lower court (look at procedure or legal issues, not facts of case)

requirements to sue

• controversy

• personal harm

• being a taxpayers (not exactly required)

federal question cases

involve us constitution, federal law, or treaties

diversity cases

involves different states or citizens of different states

district courts

entry point for most litigation in federal courts, trial courts

court of appeal

review all final decisions of district courts with the authority to review and enforce orders of regulatory agencies

supreme court

can decide which cases to hear but don’t have to hear each case

judicial review

• rights of the federal courts to rule of the constitutionality of laws and executive actions

• marbury v madison

senatorial courtesy

• appointees for federal courts are reviewed by senators from that states, if the senators are of the president’s party

• pres wants to appoint justices that have similar ideas to them

• no more fillibuster for S.C nominations

selecting justices for SC

• party affiliation

• judicial philosophy

• race, gender, religion (balance court)

• experience

• acceptability

accepting cases

• rule of four (4 judges agree to hear case)

• significant fed. question

• conflicted decisions by smaller courts

• constitutional interpretation

SC in action

• case arrives through writ of certiorari (petition to hear case)

• lawyers submit briefs to present the facts of the case, summarize the lower court decision etc

• amicus curiae briefs: submitted by special interest groups

• oral arguments given by lawyers, justices interrupt lawyers to ask questions

reserach for SC

• law clerks research info presented in oral arguments

• justices meet in private to consider cases

• informal polls to determine where sc is leaning

concurring opinion

agrees with the majority opinion but for a different reason

stare decisis

decision w/o an opinion showing respect for precedent

strict/loose construction

justices are/not bound by the wording of the constitution

original intent

deciding based on the intent of the founding fathers

judicial restrain

justices are interperators not policy makers

judicial activism

using underlying concepts of the constitution to make new policy (brown v board)

checks on judicial power

• judges have no enforcement mechanisms

• confirmed by senate

• impeached for bad behavior

• changing the number of judges

• revising legislation

• amending the constitution

• altering jurisdiction

public opinion and courts

make decisions knowing the state of society at the time since they rely on others to respect their decisions