 |
American Government 4/e Thomas E. Patterson | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Online Learning Center |
 |
|||||
|
American Government 4/e Thomas E. Patterson | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Online Learning Center |
|
|||||
CHAPTER OUTLINE
Introduction
In the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed abortion rights
Decision continued the controversy that had started with the earlier Roe v. Wade ruling
Both sides in the abortion debate pushed for Supreme Court appointees who would support their views
Election of Clinton made it less likely the abortion opponents would win
Example illustrates three key points about court decisions
Some rulings are as consequential as nearly any law
Federal courts have considerable discretion in their rulings
Judiciary is a political as well as a legal institution
The chapter’s main points:
The federal judiciary consists of the Supreme Court, courts of appeals, and district courts
Judicial decisions are constrained by constitutional, statutory, and precedent law
The judiciary has become a powerful policymaking body in recent decades
The idea of judicial restraint
The idea of judicial activism
The Federal Judicial System
Introduction
Framers did not spell out in detail the full structure of the federal court system
Constitution establishes the Supreme Court; Congress can create lower courts
Federal judges nominated by president, confirmed by Senate
Most of these judges serve until they retire or die
No age, residency, or citizenship qualification for federal judgeship
No requirement for legal training, but tradition dictates this training
The Supreme Court of the United States (the nation’s highest court)
Introduction—chief justice presides;
Jurisdiction—authority to hear cases of a particular type
Both original and appellate jurisdiction
Appellate cases involve federal law, treaties, admiralty issues, etc.
Appellate courts do not retry cases but determine if lower court acted legally
Selecting Cases—applying past rules to present
Role of precedent—lower courts expected to follow
Most cases reach Supreme Court through a writ of certiorari
Losing party in lower-court case asks for Court’s review
Four of nine justices must agree
Each year Court accepts about a hundred cases out of seven thousand requests
Another one hundred to two hundred per curiam (unsigned decisions) statements
Court is likely to hear case requested by solicitor general
Of accepted cases, Court has reversed lower court three-fourths of the time
Court chooses cases "that involve substantial legal issues"
Deciding Cases
Attorneys from both sides present oral arguments (thirty minutes per side)
Justices then have secret judicial conference; chief justice presides
Chief Justice can be persuasive and a leader
Hughes, Marshall, and Rehnquist are examples
Issuing Decisions (support for one party) and Opinions (explain legal reasoning)
Majority opinion; if party of majority, Chief Justice may write opinion
Other justices must agree with written opinion
Majority opinion is often rewritten and rethought
Plurality opinion—view held by most of the justices in majority but not all
Concurring opinion—a justice agrees with majority but for other reasons
Dissenting opinion—justices who disagree with the majority position
Dissenting opinions can later become the Court’s majority position
Example: Black’s 1942 legal counsel position, adopted in 1963
Other Federal Courts (Supreme Court is not the only court of consequence)
U.S. District Courts (lowest federal courts)
There are more than ninety district courts (at least one in every state)
Federal cases usually originate here
Only federal cases in which juries hear testimony (usually before one judge)
"Upper-court myth"—Lower courts can deviate from Supreme Court rulings
Southern district court judges saw integration as societally disruptive
Supreme Court can take a broad and ambiguous legal position
Most federal cases end with the district court’s decision
U.S. Courts of Appeals (decisions based on a review of lower-court records)
Do not use juries; no new evidence is submitted in an appealed case
Try to correct what they consider legal errors
Twelve courts plus U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Latter specializes in patents and international appeals
Four to twenty-six judges sit on each court
Can sit en banc (one body) to resolve difficult cases
Fewer than 1 percent of cases are later reviewed by Supreme Court
Special U.S. Courts
U.S. Claims Court—cases where U.S. government has been sued
U.S. Court of International Trade (appeals of U.S. Customs Office rulings)
U.S. Court of Military Appeals—hears appeals of military courts-martial
The State Courts in the Federal System
Each state decides for itself its court structure and method of judicial appointment
Judgeships are elective offices in most states
Competitive elections may be partisan or nonpartisan
Merit plan (Missouri Plan)
Commission proposes, governor appoints, then voters approve
Judge than faces "retention election" every six years
"Federal court myth"—states do not play a subordinate role:
More than 95 percent of nation’s legal cases are heard here
Most crimes, civil disputes are defined by state or local law
Nearly all cases that originate in state courts also end there
State courts can bind the federal courts (facts and legal determinations)
Federal court rulings can make state decisions a federal matter (Roe v. Wade)
Federal Court Appointees
Selecting Supreme Court Justices and Federal Judges
Supreme Court Nominees
Presidents want a nominee who will reflect their political philosophy
Senate has rejected nearly 20 percent of nominees (partisan reasons)
Bork’s 1987 nomination rejected by Senate Democrats
Ginsburg, less controversial, approved by 96–3 vote in 1993
Senate now feels it must have an overwhelming case for rejection
Lower-Court Nominees
Practice of senatorial courtesy is still followed
Recent presidents have appointed about two hundred lower-court judges per term
Justices and Judges as Political Officials
Introduction—Reagan appointed almost half of all federal judges by 1989
Wanted new judges to reject liberal principles of previous three decades
Reagan wanted change in abortion, affirmative action, and rights of accused
The Role of Partisanship
About three-fourths of Supreme Court appointees have behaved as expected
Presidents choose members of their own party (Supreme and lower courts)
Judges still prize their independence, despite partisan appointment process
GOP appointees tend to more conservative in civil rights/liberties decisions
Other Characteristics of Judicial Appointees
Most Supreme Court justices have had prior legal experience
White males overrepresented
Women and minorities: less than 25 percent of federal judges
Supreme Court is demographically unrepresentative:
Brandeis first Jewish justice; Marshall first black justice;
Sandra Day O’Connor—first female; Scalia—first Italian
Never has been a Hispanic or an Asian
Scholars disagree on demographic importance
The Nature of Judicial Decision Making
Introduction—Courts must develop legal positions within the context of the judicial process
The Legal Context of Judicial Decisions
The Constraints of the Facts (relevant circumstances of a legal dispute or offense)
The Constraints of the Law (provisions, statutes, precedents that are applicable)
Interpretation of the Constitution (Fourth Amendment and wiretapping)
Interpretation of Statutes (importance of judicial review)
Most cases involve statutory, not constitutional, law
Challenge to a statute involves "plain meaning rule" (common sense)
Congress made sure courts understood intent of Civil Rights Act
Interpretation of Precedent (principle of stare decisis)
Political Influences on Judicial Decisions
Introduction—Judges have leeway in their decisions (rulings are both legal and political)
"Outside" Influences on Court Decisions (public, Congress, groups, elected officials)
The Force of Public Opinion
Court used phrase "all deliberate speed" in Brown case to calm South
Courts will not stand alone on controversial issues (abortion)
Lobbying the Courts
Litigation is expensive ($500,000 to take case to Supreme Court)
But legal suit may have more success than appeals to elected institution
Typical are suits brought by ACLU, NAACP
Also amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs—have risen dramatically
The Leverage of Public Officials
Congress can rewrite legislation, establish size, jurisdiction of Court
Has demonstrated displeasure with some Supreme Court rulings
Example: Swann decision on busing
Presidents/executive branch can influence cases that come before courts
Reagan challenged affirmative action through Justice Department
Clinton filled vacant federal judgeships with loyal Democrats
Judges are not popularly elected and hold appointments indefinitely
Allows them to resist congressional/presidential pressures
Example: Court ban on school prayer has not changed
"Inside" Influences: The Justices’ Own Political Beliefs
Justices’ political beliefs affect their decisions
1996: Scalia and Thomas often differed with Breyer and Ginsburg
But justices’ political differences are seldom total
Rehnquist Court modified rather than repudiated Warren Court rulings
Position of some justices dependent on type of issue in question
Byron White conservative on civil liberties, moderate on regulation
Most Supreme Court justices hold stable political views
Major shifts in Court’s positions occur with membership changes
Turnover of justices depends on retirement and death—irregular and unpredictable
Nixon made four Supreme Court appointments during his time in office
Carter made no appointments during his four years in office
Judicial Power and Democratic Government
Introduction—Courts are not a majoritarian institution (judges not elected or accountable)
Court decisions reflect political philosophy of tiny elite with significant power
How far should judges go in substituting their policies for those of elected officials?
Constitutional amendments are impractical methods of reversing Supreme Court
The Debate over the Proper Role of the Judiciary
Introduction—question of legitimacy (judicial authority and majority rule)
Judiciary has at times acted like a legislature (busing and prison reform)
Judiciary has thus restricted policymaking authority of states and Congress
Still, U.S. political system requires an assertive judiciary
Shift from traditional private law emphasis to public law
The Doctrine of Judicial Restraint (respect precedent, defer to legislatures)
Passage of laws by elected officials should decide public good
Judges’ role: apply laws and precedent to specific cases
Advocates: The right of the majority to choose policies must be protected
Self-restraint preserves public support for the courts
Key issue is compliance (decisions must be respected and obeyed)
Judicial discretion is sometimes necessary (desegregation)
Romer v. Evans illustrates judicial interference to some
The Doctrine of Judicial Activism (courts should enlarge upon the law)
Courts should not be "overly deferential" to precedent or political views
Liberal activists insist on achieving social justice through activism
Constitution is supposed to protect people from government
Thus judiciary must stand up to coercive lawmaking majority
Supreme Court acted properly in Gideon v. Wainwright
Conservative jurists have also been active
During 1930s early New Deal programs struck down
Rehnquist Court overturned precedents regarding the accused
Could argue that all judges are activists in terms of creative decisions
The Judiciary’s Proper Role: A Question of Competing Values
Value judgments in a society where majority rule and individual rights conflict
Trade-offs regarding states’ rights vs. federal power; legislative vs. judicial power
MHHE Home | About MHHE | Help Desk | Legal Policies and Info | Order Info | What's New | Get Involved
