Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
39 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Where is the Supreme Court mentioned in the Constitution |
Article 3- The Supreme Court to be the guardian of the entrenched constitution |
|
|
What is Marbury v Madison (1803) |
Established SC's power of Judicial Review = able to declare acts as unconstitutional |
|
|
Why is the Supreme Court so important to the US system of Government? |
-interprets the vague language of the constitution -Resolves conflict between branches of gov. -resolves conflict over rights -Judicial Review |
|
|
What is judicial review? |
The SC power to declare laws or parts of laws that are passed by Congress as unconstitutional. Also enables Presidential activities to be declared as unconstitutional |
|
|
Examples of when judicial review has been used |
-Clinton v City of NY (1998)- line item veto struck down |
|
|
How are SC Justices are appointed |
1. A vacancy through retirement, death r impeachment 2. President searches for candidates and interviews shortlisted candidates 3. P announces nominee 4. Senate confirmation process (Senate Judiciary Committee) |
|
|
What does the President consider when making a nomination |
- candidate's experience - candidate's ideology - balance and diversity of the Court - Party composition in the Senate |
|
|
Give an example of a President who did not make a judicial appointment |
Carter |
|
|
Examples of nominees who were not appointed |
- Robert Bork (1987 by Regan) :too conservative, divided gov - Harriet Miers (2005 Bush jnr): no experience as a judge, withdrew before hearings - Clement Haynesworth (1969 Nixon): divided gov - Harrold Carswell (1970 Nxion): divided gov |
|
|
Why might a nomination to the SC not be successful? |
divided gov -upset the balance of the court |
|
|
Limitations on P's power to nominate justices |
-only appoint when vacancy arises -cannot remove justice or influence decisions once appointed -Justices don't have to act on P's wishes -Judicial independence -SC not predictable |
|
|
Who are the current SC Justices? |
-John Robert, 2005 -Anthony Kennedy, 1988 - Clarence Thomas, 1991 - Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 1993 - Stephen Breyer, 1994 - Samuel Anthony Alito Jr, 2006 - Sonia Sotomayor, 2009 -Elena Kagan, 2010 |
|
|
Why is the SC appointment process political? |
- Senate more assertive now - SC Justices live out Presidents - nominees don't have to have practiced law -cronyism -interest groups |
|
|
What is Judicial Independence? |
The idea that there should be strict separation between the Judiciary and the other branches, fundamental to the rule of law - Judges should operate free from any political control over their behaviour |
|
|
How is judicial independence possible? |
-Security of tenure - Can only be removed from impeachment - Separation of powers |
|
|
What is Judicial neutrality? |
-Judicial neutrality holds that judges should be politically neutral Judicial neutrality is where judges operate impartially when administering justice |
|
|
Difference between independence and neutrality? |
-independence: free from external influence - Neutrality: free from personal bias |
|
|
Examples to illustrate impartiality/ neutrality of SC |
- 1972, Furman v Georgie, Harry Blackmum opposed capital punishment yet voted to uphold death penalty in state law - 1989, Anthony Kennedy, voted to uphold right to burn the American flag, despite being against it |
|
|
What is original intent? |
Justices believe they should follow the original intentions of the FF, not apply modern day values |
|
|
How can you be neutral and not follow original intent |
The Const. is a living document and is flexible with the times |
|
|
What is the structure of federal courts |
SC -13 Courts of Appeal -94 trial court - |
|
|
How are cases heard in the SC? |
-only hears cases it wants to -SC rejects over 96% -Case must be of major constitutional significance -Makes decisions on the rule of four |
|
|
Typical stages of a SC case |
-Rule of four -written briefs -amicus curiae -oral argument -case conference -Preliminary vote -Draft opinion and time for votes to change -Decision announced |
|
|
What is amicus curiae |
"friend of the court" -interest groups will hope to give justices evidence -NAACP Brown v Board |
|
|
What is the changing role of the solicitor-general |
-Appears before the court -since 1870, source of neutral, legal expertise for justices -much more politicised now |
|
|
What is judicial activism? |
-"loose constructionism" -Justices interpret the Const. in light of modern conditions - Best for the country at the present time -Landmark rulings - favour federal power - less inclined to observe precedent -liberal/ modernist |
|
|
What is judicial restraint |
-"strict constructionism"and "original intent" -interpret const. more literally -avoid innovation -favour states' rights -follows precedent -conservative/ traditionalist |
|
|
Examples of rulings made by the Warren Court |
-Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, 1954 segregation separate but not equal -Engel v Vitale, 1962 enforced prayer in public schools violated the constitution |
|
|
Examples of Burger Court rulings |
-Furman v Georgia, 1972, placed stringent requirements on death penalty statutes - Roe v Wade, 1973, abortion is a constitutional right |
|
|
Examples of Rehnquist Court rulings |
-Casey v Planned Parenthood, 1992, Upheld Roe v Wade -Bush v Gore, 2000, Ruled that Florida ballots was unconstitutional so Bush won election |
|
|
Examples of Roberts Court rulings |
-Gonzales v Cahart, 2007, upheld a federal ban on late-term partial birth abortions -Obergefell v Hodges, 2015, ruled same sex marriage was constitutional |
|
|
Different checks on the SC |
-Congress, confirm appts, no. of justices -President, nomiate justices -No power of initiation -No enforcement powers -public opinion -itself -constitution |
|
|
How is the SC powerful? |
-power of judicial review -power to increase/decrease power of presidents -can be quasi-legislative body |
|
|
How is the SC no powerful? |
-can limit itself -no power of enforcement -no power of initiation |
|
|
Examples to show the SC protects civil liberties |
-Texas v Johnson, 1989, desecration of the flag struck down -Roe v Wade, abortion -Brown v Board of Education -Obergefell v Hodges |
|
|
Examples to show the SC does not protect civil liberties |
-cannot enforce them -Later courts can overturn decisions -Cannot initiate cases |
|
|
Why is the SC too politicised? |
-Amicus curiae -appointment process -SC rulings shape US society |
|
|
How is the SC not too politicised? |
-constrained by the constitution
-judicial restraint -Appointments don't always turn out the right way -cannot instigate debate |
|
|
Comparisons between the UK and US judiciary |
-UK, no unconstitutional rulings-UK, more independent since 2009 with SC creation-US, SC is highest court-UK, European courts higher
|
