POSC 130g 1st Edition Lecture 9Current Lecture1. When you watch the film, look at the jury overall. Is it representative?2. Consider the pros and cons of juries. What are the negative effects that juries can have by how they are constructed? What are the positives? 3. What is the role of dissent? One actor, Fonda, who plays dissent, consider the role of that. Consider if you would be able to play that role. If there is 11 versus 1, would you beable to play that role? 4. Themes of the film, look at the construction of the jury. It’s called 12 angry men, not women, all white. The accused was Puerto Rican. Think of Paxon v Kentucky. Consider the peremptory challenge. Make sure connect to major themes of the class. Apply cases to the film. 5. Consider the bias of the jury. Look at the specific jury, somewhere prejudice and some wanted to watch the ball game. Consider what happens in real life. How would you wantyour jury to be structured? Pita caseOrcas at Sea WorldJudge dismissed it yesterday. PITA’s main argument: the access rule standing, Orcas are enslaved and in violation of the 13th amendment. Slavery is illegal and should not be practiced under US jurisdiction. Live about 8-9 years in captivity when in the wild they live over 60 years. They are forced to do tricks for the people. Access rules: the issue of standing didn’t get any attention. The judge took for granted that PITA absolutely was the next best person to bring the case on behalf ofthe Orcas. PITA proved that they were closely enough related to the case and had their best interest in heart. PITA had trainers, one that had been with Flippers and had an investment and their best interest at heart. Bill Hurchcock: person that made it legal for interracial marriage. Sea World’s Response: Whales don’t have constitutional rights and this is offensive to humans that are and were enslaved. Judge’s Response: How do you communicate to the Orcas? He said that whales don’t have rights. What is it about for animal activists: Have a legal system that corporations have constitutional rights, but non human animals don’t. Prohibition against advisory opinions:1. Arguments for and against2. Two requirements to avoid advisory opinionsa. There must be an actual dispute between adverse litigantsb. There must be a substantial likelihood a favorable court decision will have some effect. Standing1. prohibition against generalized grievancesa. A generalized grievance is where plaintiff is suing as a citizen or a taxpayer. b. Goal: to make government comply with the law. Better to use political processesIn the area of the first Amendment, where people are saying the government shouldn’t be giving money to religious schools for textbooks, etc because it violates the separation of church and state under the first amendment, the court has made an exception. There are limits on access. Since 1970s mostly prohibited except for establishment clause cases (government giving money to religious schools). Prop 8: issue with this is the standing issue. The people who wrote Prop 8 may not have had standing on the fact it was struck down. When the lawsuit was brought challenging the validity of it, the state didn’t want to defend the law on the basis of Prop 8. If the state refused to defend the law that had come a state law, could the sponsors of the law defend it? Those who drafted it did have standing to defend it. Ripeness1. The more serious the hardship, the more likely the Court will consider the case and grantreinforcements review. Some people think it is related to the rule of advisory opinions. Ifit is too early to decide the case, it may be dismissed on ripeness. Crucial whether individual is put to an unfair choiceUnited Public Workers v. Mitchell (1947) – federal hatch act, rule that didn’t allow employees to be involved in political things, employees brought a challenge but the court said it wasn’t right because nothing happened to them. As to one person who had been political action and lost his job, the lawsuit was ripe for him. Violate the law and risk consequences or not violate the law and not get to exercise political rights2. FitnessHinges on whether a more purely legal question, not dependent on factual record.There needs to be enough of a factual record for the court to decide the case. They may say the case isn’t ripe if there isn’t enough factual record. If it is purely legal, they won’t be so concerned.MootnessCase is moot if there is no longer an actual controversy between adverse litigantsIf the person is deadIf it is a civil suit, they can still sue.Law that makes abortion illegal, Roe v. WadeIf someone challenges the law by the time the person is convicted, time may work against them.She would have had the baby already by the time the US Supreme Court decides if abortion violates the constitution. If it is likely to happen again, it can be an exception to mootness. Exceptions: a. wrongs capable of repetition, yet evading reviewb. Likely to happen again to plaintiffc. Injury of inherently limited durationExamples: Roe v. Wade (1973): abortionMoore v. Ogilvie (1969): election law, election would already have taken place if there is a controversy over how ballots are done and signatures. If the matter is finished, and if it is likely to happen again, it is an exception to mootness. 3. Collateral injuriesChallenge to criminal conviction (but not sentence)Person cant challenge sentence if they have served already. If there are consequences like not getting jobs and collateral injuries, it is okay for a person to challenge a criminal conviction. 4. Voluntary cessationWomen challenges employer and employer voluntarily ceases behavior- it is a moot issue that he stopped, but since the person can do it again, the court will not deem this as moot because he could do it again. 5. Class actionsSosna v. Iowa (1979) – one year residency requirement, it was a class action on people who didn’t want to wait a year. In her case, by the time the court would deal with the challenge, she had already lived there a year and it didn’t pertain to her. But because there were other people affected, the case is moot to the named person but not to the huge number of people that would be affected to in the class. Political Question Doctrine1. Cases that courts decline to adjudicate because they pose political questions; too hot to handle matter2. Arguments for and against: other branches in government have better