PSC 101Final Exam Study Guide Lectures: 20-25Part 1 Federal CourtsTypes- District courts- Courts of appeals/circuit courts- Supreme CourtFederal Judges- Article III/Normal courts Judges are appointed “for good behavior” Confirmed by the Senate Have salary protection- Rules differ for a few courts Article I/”legislative” courtsGetting impeached- Hard to get impeached or convicted- Judges who’ve been removed in the past: John Pickering: Insanity (drunkenness and unlawful rulings), 1804 West Humphreys: Secessionist, 1862 Robert Archbald: Corruption, 1912 Halsted Ritter: Corruption/abuse of office, 1936 Harry Claiborne: Corruption, 1986 Alcee Hastings: Corruption, 1988, acquitted in criminal trial Walter Nixon: Corruption/perjury, 1989District Courts- 94, including 5 territorial and D.C.- Courts of original jurisdiction/trial courts Decide matters of fact Decide matters of lawCircuit Courts- 13 circuits- Appellate courts Decide (review) only matters of law Look at lower court decisions Did the lower court interpret the law correctly? Did the lower court admit evidence that inadmissible? Did the lower court fail to follow important precedents? Is the law in question constitutional?Supreme Court- Original jurisdiction sometimes- Mostly appellate court Appeals from lower federal courts Appeals from highest state courtsState Courts- Different selection systems Partisan election Nonpartisan election Appointment by governor or legislature Missouri/merit plan Commission reviews candidates and sends to governor to choose- Names of courts vary Basic trial court Courts “final” appeal Can’t tell which just from the nameJudicial Review- Doctrine that can overturn laws that violate the Constitution- Not granted in Constitution- From Marbury v. Madison (1803)- U.S. Supreme Court avoids overturning federal laws when it canGetting a Case Heard- Many requirements for a case to get heard by any court- Actual controversy- Standing Evidence that you have actually been harmed  Evidence that you are in serious danger- Not “political question”Supreme Court- Getting your case heard Supreme court doesn’t normally have to hear your case Can choose to by issuing a writ of certiorari Send the record of a proceeding for review Court uses Rule of Four to grant certiorari Permits four of the nine justices to grant a writ of certiorariGetting CertiorariSupreme Court more likely to hear a case if:- A lower court has ignored Supreme Court precedent- Federal district of circuit courts disagree- A federal law has been held unconstitutional in a lower court- A federal law was upheld against a strong constitutional claim- A state law or constitution was upheld against the challenge that it violates federal law or the U.S. constitutionSupreme Court Procedure- Submit briefs- Briefs get read (or not)- Oral argument- Voting and opinion circulationDeciding- Judicial restraint vs. judicial activism Judges’ own policy preferences not involved vs. judges decide what they think is the best way to go about the situation- Original intent Using the original interpretation of the Constitution- Literalism What the law is instead of what it means Law read word by word- Interpretivism/ “living Constitution” Philosophical interpretation of the law No difference between law and moralityOpinions- Court’s opinion Most important Only one with legal power- Concurring opinion Written by one or more judges of a court Agrees with the decision made by the majority or the court States different reasons for the basis of the decision- Dissenting opinion An opinion in a legal case written by one or more judges Expresses disagreement with the majority opinion of the court- Mix (concur in part, dissent in part)Court’s Opinion- Carries legal decision and orders- Assigned by most senior Justice in majority- May be per curiam (by the court)Concurring Opinion- Agrees with the decision (affirm/reverse)- Disagrees with the reasoning in the Court’s opinionDissenting Opinion- Disagrees with both decision and reasoning- Appeal to the future - Court made the wrong decision with the wrong reasoningThe Last Stage- Compliance Court has no army, no navy, effectively no police Must rely for enforcement on the “political branches” Civil rights-post BrownPart II Civil LibertiesCivil Liberties and Civil Rights- Civil liberties does not equal civil rights Civil liberties-rights to be left alone by the government Civil rights-rights to be equal with one another Government doesn’t normally enforce civil liberties but they just don’t break them Government does enforce civil rightsFirst Amendment- No law saying there can only be one practiced religion- No law limiting the practice of any religion- No law limiting or restricting freedom of speech- No law saying that people can’t assemble and discuss their opinions or petition the governmentFreedom of Religion-Establishment Clause- Prayer in public schools- Aid to parochial schools- Creationism and evolution in public schoolsPrayer in Public Schools- Engel vs. Vitale 1962 State can’t compose a prayer and force people to say it- Only public schools and public K-12 schools- NY had a prayer approved by the Board of Regents that was recited by students- Prayer in school is not illegal- It is protected as free speech Mergens 1990 wanted to form religious court Lamb’s Chapel vs. Center Moriches School District 1993 have to be neutral- You can talk about God in school without forceAid to Religious Schools- Est. clause dos not forbid aid to religion- Government is allowed to aid religion but can’t treat it differently - Lemon vs. Kurtzman 1971 sets up a 3-part test (lemon test) (3 prong lemon test)1. Does the law have a rational secular purpose?2. Does the law neither advance nor inhibit religion? (Is it neutral?)3. Does the law create any “excessive entanglements” between church and state?- Third one is hardest Have to put someone in charge of making sure classes are not religiousEvolution and Creationism- Can public schools require arguably Biblical accounts of creation be taught along with or in place of evolution?- Edwards vs. Aguillard 1987 LA requires