what important principle did Marbury v Madison establish?
judicial review
how many federal courts are there
approx. 120, established by congress
how many state courts are there
1000s of them, established by state constitutions
jurisdiction
the authority to hear and decide on a case by case basis
exclusive jurisdication
case can only be heard by a federal court
concurrent jurisdiction
case could be heard in either federal or state court
original jurisdiction
a court in which the case is first heard
appellate jurisdiction
a court that hears a case form lower court
plantiff
person who files a lawsuit
defendant
person who the complaint is against
docket
list of cases to be heard
district courts
handle most of the cases for the federal govt, each state has atleast one, but maybe more based on population, they have original jurisdiction, and do both civil and criminal cases
court of appeals
keeps the supreme court less busy, they have appellate jurisdiction and hear cases appealed from the district courts.
Marbury vs Madison summary
john Adams tried to appoint his own judges before Jefferson became potus, but Jefferson did not allow those judges to come, one of the judges who would have been there was William Marbury
why does hamilton believe that the judicial branch poses no threat
because the judicial branch is separate and has no real power unlike the other branches.
why does hamilton believe that the supreme court justices should have a lifetime term.
so that they will not be affected by the partisan pressure of reelections and wont succumb to political pressure if they had 2 get reelected
3 influences on American law
Hammurabi code, Ten Commandments, British common law
factors president uses to appoint supreme court justices
party affiliation, judicial philosophy, senatorial courtesy, background
conservative justices
Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Barret, Alito, Thomas (remember it as __KGB AT__tack)
liberal justices
Kagan, Jackson, Sotomayor (remember it as JKS)
moderate justice (also cheif justice)
John Roberts
which justices have been solicitor general
John Roberts and Elena Kagan
5 forces that influence court
law, personal views of justices, relations among the justices, concern of public support, and the other 2 branches
judicial review
can examine laws and actions of local state and national govt to cancel them if they violate the constitution
Interpreting the meaning of laws
due to congressâs use of general language, it is up to courts to decide what law really means
Overruling or reversing its previous position
usually old decisions help shape future decisions, but in dissent sometimes a few are overturned, and change must happen
Judicial Restraint
Judges should decide cases based on the original intent of the Constitution and precedent
Judicial Activism
Judges should act boldly; law should be interpreted and applied considering ongoing changes in society (values).
how many justices were there originally vs now
6, 9
when is the break of the supreme court justicies
june-sept
how are supreme court justices appointed
potential justices interview president, president nominates the ones he likes, senate vets the nominee and if they approve, there is a new justice, but if they do not approve, there is no new justice
how many years until vacancies occur in the supreme court
2
per curiam
a brief unsigned statement of courts decision, if case is simple and facts are mailed in then they can make the decision right there
amicus curaie
those not involved directly in the case but have an interest in the outcome will also submit their options.
oral arguments
30 mins of hearing for each lawyer Infront of the court, often interrupted by questions and comments by the justices.
steps of how cases are selected
petition arrives and is deemed important or not, on friday list is discussed, per curiam, or hearing
steps of when hearing is granted
briefs, amicus curiae, oral arguments, conference, opinion
unanimous opinion
all feel the same for one side
majority opinion
decision of the court, explanation
concurring opinion
agree with decision, but on different opinion or grounds
dissenting opinion
losing opinion for those in disagreement with majority, it can lead to change later if court changes its mind
precedent
a decision made in a former case that stands as a rule for future changes in order to keep consistency, can be rarely subject to change
stare decisis
precedent, or let the decision stand