AP government unit 5 judicial branch

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 congress’s 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