Download
1 / 24
240 likes | 264 Views
The Judiciary. The Founding Fathers and the Court. The Framers believed that the judicial branch would be the weakest branch and pose little threat of tyranny.
E N D
The Founding Fathers and the Court • The Framers believed that the judicial branch would be the weakest branch and pose little threat of tyranny. • Anti-Federalists objected to “life tenure” for judges and the ability to interpret the law. They felt this would give the judicial branch too much power. • A compromise left the decision of creating lower federal courts to Congress. • The framers also believed in the Rule of Law, that government and its officers are subject to, never above, the law.
Article III of the Constitution • Section 1 – - Vests “The judicial Power of the United States…in one supreme court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” - Gave Congress the authority to establish other courts as it saw fit. • Section 2 – - Specifies the judicial power of the Supreme Court and discusses the Court’s original and appellate jurisdiction. - Specifies that all federal crimes, except impeachment, shall be tried in the state where the crime was committed. - Defines treason and mandates the appearance of at least two witnesses in such cases. • Section 3 – - “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice will preside. - Gave the justices tenure for life with “good behavior.” - Salaries of judges may not be reduced during their time of service.
Judiciary Act of 1789 Established the basic three-tiered structure of the federal court system. • Supreme • Court • Circuit Courts • Federal District Courts
The Judicial Power of the United States Supreme Court The following are the types of cases the Supreme Court was given the jurisdiction to hear as initially specified in the Constitution: • All cases arising under the Constitution and laws or treaties of the United States • All cases of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction • Cases in which the United States is a party • Controversies between a state and citizens of another state • Controversies between two or more states • Controversies between citizens of different states • Controversies between citizens of the same states claiming lands under grants in different states • Controversies between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states or citizens thereof • All cases affecting ambassadors or other public ministers
Early Court Decisions Early courts tried to advance the principles of nationalism and maintain federal supremacy over the states • Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) – Gave the Supreme Court • the right to decide cases brought by citizens • against a state in which they did not reside. • Fletcher v. Peck (1810), Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee • (1816), Cohens v. Virginia (1821) – Gave the • Supreme Court the power to declare state laws invalid. • McCulloch v. Maryland(1819) – Upheld the power of • federal government to tax and denied the right of a • state to tax the bank. • Marbury v. Madison ( 1803) – First asserted the right • of judicial review in declaring an act of Congress • unconstitutional.
Who Are Federal Judges? • Typically they have held other political offices. • State court judge or prosecutor • Most have been involved in politics • White males tend to dominate
Nomination Criteria The Constitution is silent about qualifications for constitutional courts, however, presidents have their own criteria which usually includes: • Competence – Most prospective nominees are expected to have had • some judicial or governmental experience. • Ideology or Policy Preference - Most presidents seek to appoint • individuals who share their political and policy preferences. Most • presidents have political goals in mind when they appoint a justice. • Rewards – Historically, many of those appointed to the Supreme Court • have been personal friends of the president or rewards for party participation.
Nomination Criteria Continued… • Pursuit of Political Support –Some presidents have appointed justices to gain support of certain sections of the population. (ex: Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Connor to gain the support of women) • Religion –Most modern presidents try to achieve diversity on the court. • Race, Ethnicity, Gender –Most modern presidents try to have the court reflect the population of the United States.
The Supreme Court Justice Selection Process
Supreme Court Caseload Almost 9,000 cases were filed at the Supreme Court in its 2003-2004 term. Ninety were heard, seventy-three were decided. Justices can exercise a significant role in policy making and politics by opting not to hear a case. Appellate Jurisdiction – Appeal to the Supreme Court should be taken only if the case presents more important issues of law or a “substantial federal question.” Original Jurisdiction – in “all Cases Affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party.”
Deciding Which Cases to Hear • Since 1988, nearly all appellate cases going to the Supreme Court arrive on a petition for a writ of certiorari(a request for the court to order up the records from a lower court to review the issue). • All petitions for certiorari must meet two criteria: * The case must come from either a United States court of appeals, a special three-judge district court, or a state court of last resort. * The case must involve a federal question that presents questions of interpretation of federal law or involve a federal statute, action, or treaty. The reasons for the Court to accept the case are set out in petitions (briefs).
Deciding Which Cases to Hear • Court clerks review the petitions and recommend cases to be heard. • Petitions are sent to a “cert” pool, where justices review their fraction of petitions and share their votes with each other. • Those cases that the justices deem worthy are placed on a “discuss list” and circulated to the other justices. • Lists are reviewed by the justices at weekly conference meetings. Discussions are held according to seniority. • If at least four judges vote to hear a case, the “Rule of Four” is followed and certiorari is granted.
Cases that the Courts Tend to Hear • The federal government is the party the review. • The case involves conflict among the circuit courts. • The case presents a civil rights or civil liberties question. • The case has significant social or political interest, as evidenced by amicus curiae briefs.
Hearing and Deciding a Case The Supreme Court’s annual terms begins on the first Monday in October and runs through early July. Oral arguments– Justices hear oral arguments until early April. * Limited to the immediate parties in the case and are allotted one half hour to present their cases. This includes questions from the bench. * Serves three important functions: - It is the only time the public and the press see how the court works, - It assures the lawyers that the justices have heard their case, - It provides the court with additional information.
Hearing and Deciding a Case The Supreme Court’s annual terms begins on the first Monday in October and runs through early July. The Conference and the Vote – Justices meet in closed conference once a week. * Each justice discusses the case in order of seniority. * Justices tend to try to change the minds of the others. * Justices usually come into the conference knowing how they will vote. * Initial votes are not final and justices may change their minds. Final votes are taken later.
Hearing and Deciding a Case The Supreme Court’s annual terms begins on the first Monday in October and runs through early July. The Opinion – Once a decision is made in conference, justices must write the formal opinion of the court. * Majority Opinion – This reflects the views of at least five of the justices. It justifies the courts reasoning for future cases to set precedent under the system of stare decisis. * Minority Opinion – This reflects the views of justices who do not agree with the outcome of the case. * Concurrent Opinion – Justices who agree with the outcome of the case, but for different reasons.
Judicial Philosophy • Strict Constructionist – An approach to constitutional interpretation that emphasizes the framers original intention. • Loose Constructionist – An approach to constitutional interpretation that emphasizes interpretation of the Constitution.
Judicial Philosophy and Decision Making • Judicial restraint: • A philosophy of judicial decision making that argues courts should allow the decisions of other branches of government to stand, even when they offend a judge’s own sense of principles. • Judicial activism: • A philosophy of judicial decision making that argues judges should use their power broadly to further justice, especially in the areas of equality and personal liberty.
Policy Making and the Court The Constitution gives the power of its interpretation to the Supreme Court Over one hundred federal laws have been declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has the ability to overrule itself. The general trend of the court has been to decide cases that would be more appropriately decided in another branch of government.
