If you go out and about within our country and you ask people if they knew very much about the United States court system, they will most likely tell you that they do not know very much about the court system unless they have been involved with the court system whether it be federal or state level. Most people do not realize that the court systems have three levels within them or that there is certain situation that will allow you to get to one level or the other. There is a whole lot of information that some people may not know. They may not know about judicial review and how it came about. Some people may not even know how justices decide the ruling of their cases. All of this will be discussed to hopefully let others to able to get the
…show more content…
Judicial review is where a case is sort of opened back up again, so that they can review it in front of a public body. This has its own purposes in making sure that the decisions on previous cases were done with unbiasedness and under the existing laws. If they open up a case and they might decide that the decision that was made is the right decision or they could decide that invalidation was the right thing to do for the case that they reopened. They can decide if a court case had the wrong ending decisions. If they do not like the previous ending decision, they can make a new decision about that particular court case they reopened. The judicial review got started in 1803 with the Marbury vs Madison case. It was the first court case that the supreme court struck down an act of congress as unconstitutional. The chief justice started the judicial review because of the fact that the decisions that were being made were unconstitutional and that chief justice wanted the case to be reviewed with everyone so that the unconstitutional matters could be seen and dealt with in a fashionable …show more content…
They use judicial review to determine if a court case’s law or actions contradicted the constitutional. Through the review of all the facts and information in each case as well the decision of that they can tell if that case goes with the constitution or against the constitution. Some may think one case is with the constitution while another case of similar fashion is unconstitutional. That is because the justices have different minds and also have their own opinions of each case that they see. When they have decided that a case is unconstitutional then there will be steps and procedures that will get that case repealed and another decision be made about that case. They do that because of the fact that if a law or decision was considered unconstitutional than that law or decision cannot be enforced properly and something different needs to happen in order for it to become enforceable. One thing that many people may not know about the judicial branch is that the people who work within the judicial branch is not actually elected they are hired into the branch from other locations or agencies. With that being said, many people like to think about if what they call judicial activism should be a proper exercise of judicial power within the branch. Judicial activism is when there are judicial rulings suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than by law. This is not a very excellent way to
Judicial review is where a case is sort of opened back up again, so that they can review it in front of a public body. This has its own purposes in making sure that the decisions on previous cases were done with unbiasedness and under the existing laws. If they open up a case and they might decide that the decision that was made is the right decision or they could decide that invalidation was the right thing to do for the case that they reopened. They can decide if a court case had the wrong ending decisions. If they do not like the previous ending decision, they can make a new decision about that particular court case they reopened. The judicial review got started in 1803 with the Marbury vs Madison case. It was the first court case that the supreme court struck down an act of congress as unconstitutional. The chief justice started the judicial review because of the fact that the decisions that were being made were unconstitutional and that chief justice wanted the case to be reviewed with everyone so that the unconstitutional matters could be seen and dealt with in a fashionable …show more content…
They use judicial review to determine if a court case’s law or actions contradicted the constitutional. Through the review of all the facts and information in each case as well the decision of that they can tell if that case goes with the constitution or against the constitution. Some may think one case is with the constitution while another case of similar fashion is unconstitutional. That is because the justices have different minds and also have their own opinions of each case that they see. When they have decided that a case is unconstitutional then there will be steps and procedures that will get that case repealed and another decision be made about that case. They do that because of the fact that if a law or decision was considered unconstitutional than that law or decision cannot be enforced properly and something different needs to happen in order for it to become enforceable. One thing that many people may not know about the judicial branch is that the people who work within the judicial branch is not actually elected they are hired into the branch from other locations or agencies. With that being said, many people like to think about if what they call judicial activism should be a proper exercise of judicial power within the branch. Judicial activism is when there are judicial rulings suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than by law. This is not a very excellent way to