DOC PREVIEW
SC POLI 101 - Logic6eCh09Outline

This preview shows page 1-2-3-4-5-6 out of 18 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 18 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 18 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 18 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 18 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 18 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 18 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 18 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

9. The Federal JudiciaryGeneral Characteristics of the Supreme CourtSlide 3History of the Supreme CourtSupreme Court ProcedureSlide 6Slide 7Slide 8Slide 9Legal Influences on DecisionsJudicial Review: Pre-MarburyJudicial Review: Marbury v. MadisonSlide 13Three Eras of the Court’s Judicial ReviewThe Supreme Court’s Place in Separation of PowersSeparation of Powers: Constitutional and Statutory ControlSeparation of Powers: Judicial RecruitmentWho Guards the Guardians?9. The Federal JudiciaryGeneral Characteristics of the Supreme Court•Both a Legal and Political Institution–Legal Aspects•Has specific jurisdiction to hear disputes•Can only hear legal issues from cases brought specifically before it•Lifetime appointment of justices generates certain political insulation–Political Aspects•Each decision creates a broader policy implication•Legal interpretation subject to ideological influenceGeneral Characteristics of the Supreme Court•Policy Making on the Court–Specific dispute brought by litigants (parties)–Court renders a decision for one litigant–Interpretation of law or general policy statement generates implications for society•Limitations to Policy Making–Few decisions per year (around 80)–Exercise of judicial restraint and deference to other branches•Judicial Activism–When the Court inserts its own preferences over policy for those of another institutionHistory of the Supreme Court•Docket History of the Court–1790-1865: issues of federalism–1865-1937: economic issues–1937-today: civil libertiesSupreme Court Procedure•Certiorari–Approximately 8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari every year•Takes four (4) justices to grant certiorari (known as the Rule of Four)–Approximately 80 cases granted certiorari–Some cases Dismissed as Improvidently Granted (DIG)•Occurs after initial grant of certiorari, case is not reviewedSupreme Court Procedure•Oral Arguments–Each litigant receives 30 minutes to present case–Often interrupted by the justices (which uses up their time)•Initial Conference–Justices meet behind closed doors to discuss the case–Chief Justice speaks first, Associate justices speak in order of seniority–Vote taken on case •If Chief is in the majority coalition he assigns the opinion author •Otherwise, most senior Associate Justice in the majority assignsSupreme Court Procedure•Final Decision–Final vote taken based on the language of the majority opinion (each justice votes)•Simple majority vote determines which litigant wins the case•In the event of a tie, the lower court decision stands–Individuals have the option of joining the majority opinion or casting a dissenting vote•Individuals then have option of writing a concurring opinion (if they sided with the majority) or a dissenting opinion (if they sided with the minority)Supreme Court Procedure•Majority Opinion–At least 5 justices needed to “sign on”•This is absolute and irrespective of the total number of justices voting (need at least six justices in order to have quorum)–Majority opinion considered precedent–If less than 5 justices “sign on” to the opinion it is considered a plurality opinion•Plurality opinions are not considered precedent•Determining whether a case is considered precedent is vitalSupreme Court Procedure•Concurring Opinions–Happen when justice agrees with the outcome stated by the majority opinion but not with the reasoning•Regular concurrences – do not detract from precedent•Special concurrences – argue against legal rationale in the majority opinion and can detract from the precedent•Dissenting Opinions–Occur when justice disagrees with the outcome stated by the majority–Opinion often highlights problems with the majority opinion’s legal argumentLegal Influences on Decisions•Precedent–Past cases as legal reference Stare Decisis–Cases before Supreme Court are usually different from precedent (otherwise would have denied certiorari)–Reluctance of Court to overturn precedent–Difficulties with Precedent•With growing body of precedent on both sides, judges can simply ignore some past cases•Factual distinction•Narrow the interpretation of precedentJudicial Review: Pre-Marbury•Dr. Bonham’s Case (1610) in England–Physician accused of malpractice and brought before medical review board–British law allowed medical review board to both prosecute and adjudicate dispute–Chief Justice Edward Coke (on appeal) states that when an act of Parliament is against right and reason, the common law will control that act and render the law void•William Blackstone’s Commentaries (1775)–Supremacy of government rests with Parliament–Majority of British law based on these writingsJudicial Review: Marbury v. Madison•Background Information–Election of 1800 further fragmented political factions in the U.S.•Federalists – strong national government•Jeffersonian Republicans – strong state gov’t•Jefferson defeats Adams in presidential election –Congressional lame duck session•Passes two bills which create new judgeships•Senate confirms “midnight judges”•John Marshall, as Secretary of State, runs out of time to deliver all commissions–Jefferson enters office and refuses to deliver•Battle in Congress between Federalists and Republicans•Some federalist judges impeached by Congress–William Marbury brings claim to Attorney General who brings case directly to Supreme Court•Writ of Mandamus allowed under Judiciary Act of 1789Judicial Review: Marbury v. Madison•Marbury v. Madison (1803)–Marshall asked three questions: Does Marbury have the right to the commission? Do the laws of the United States afford him a remedy? Is the appropriate remedy a writ of mandamus issued by the Supreme Court? –He wrote that Article III explicitly lists cases that are within the Court’s jurisdiction, and issuing writs of mandamus is absent. Article III does not give Congress the power to add to the Court’s original jurisdiction. –The landmark decision solidified the Court’s power of judicial review.Three Eras of the Court’s Judicial Review –Over time, the Supreme Court’s exercise of judicial review has varied significantly–Between 1790 and 1860 portions of 2 federal laws were ruled unconstitutional–19th century: (with the exception of the 1920s and 1930s) Court struck down a relatively low number of acts of Congress and presidential


View Full Document

SC POLI 101 - Logic6eCh09Outline

Download Logic6eCh09Outline
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Logic6eCh09Outline and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Logic6eCh09Outline 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?