Lesson 6bL - Chapter 12 – The Judiciary Cha Introduction...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Chapter 12 – The Judiciary Cha Introduction Introduction • Judiciary – Refers to the system of courts and judges. • A general term for the court system. general term for the court system • Judicial Power – Authority to interpret the law. to interpret the law • To decide cases and render judgments. Introduction Introduction • Judge vs. Justice (there is a difference) vs. Justice is difference) – Generally, judges are in the lower courts. – Generally, justices are in the highest courts. – The terms are NOT interchangeable • Original vs. appellate jurisdiction – Original – hearing a case first • E.g., where you sue first, or where you’re charged with a crime. – Appellate – reviewing decisions of a lower court. decisions of lower court The Supreme Court The Supreme Court • The only court created (or mentioned) by the Constitution. – The rest of federal court system is set up by Congress. • Original jurisdiction of SCOTUS jurisdiction of SCOTUS – Over cases where a state or foreign dignitary is a party. • Supreme Court can choose to kick down to a lower court. – Exclusive if both parties are states. if • Supreme Court can NOT shift to lower court… they must hear it. • Appellate jurisdiction – All other cases heard are on appeal. • From Federal Courts of Appeal, or • From state courts “of last resort”. The Supreme Court The Supreme Court • How a case gets to the Supreme Court. case gets to the Supreme Court. – Must go through trial and appeals process. • In federal system, must come from Court of Appeals. • In states, must come from highest state court. – Claimant must file for request for a writ of must file for request for writ of certiorari (a request for Supreme Court to hear the case). (or, “cert” for short) – 4 of 9 justices must agree to hear case. • Then the Supreme Court grants certiorari. – Or, grants review. Judicial Review Judicial Review • Power of judicial review NOT in the Constitution. of judicial review NOT in the Constitution. • In England (our system is loosely based on courts courts applied the law passed • English courts), courts applied the law passed by Parliament, without regard to “fairness” or “justice.” • In the U.S., there is a tradition of “judicial rebellion” – I.e., refusing to apply laws that are unfair or unjust. • There IS room for interpretation Marbury v. Madison (1803) (One of the first ever Supreme Court Decisions) • Facts – Adams (a Federalist) lost election to Jefferson (an Anti-Federalist). – Appointed a bunch of judges (including Marbury) to secure Federalist influence in the courts. – Adams’ Sec of State (Marshall) forgot to deliver to Marbury his commission. • Figured new administration would do it. new administration would do it – Jefferson refused to give Marbury his commission. • So, Marbury sues Madison (Jefferson’s Sec of State) for his commission, with a writ of mandamus. – Or, forcing a public official to perform his duties. The cast The cast… John Adams Outgoing President John Marshall Outgoing Sec of State William Marbury Judge Wannabe Thomas Jefferson Incoming President James Madison Incoming Sec of State John Marshall New SCOTUS Chief Marbury Madison Marbury v. Madison • Marshall (now Chief Justice) had 2 (now Chief Justice) had (obvious) choices. – Rule in favor of Marbury, and have Jefferson ignore the decision. – Rule in favor of Jefferson, and risk appearance of “caving in” to the Executive th Branch. – Either would undermine the Court’s influence…remember, their power has NOT been established yet. Marbury Madison Marbury v. Madison • Final Holding Holding – Marbury WAS entitled to commission. – BUT Supreme Court had no authority in this Supreme Court had no authority in this case. • Only Constitution could say what Supreme Court has Constitution could say what Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in. • Marbury’s case was based on an Act that expanded Supreme Court’s orig. jurisdiction. – Or, created a power out of the blue = not a good thing. • The Act was in conflict with the Constitution, and thus Act was in conflict with the Constitution and thus the Act was unconstitutional. Marbury Madison Marbury v. Madison • Challenges? – Marbury couldn’t challenge b/c the Court challenge b/c the Court agreed with him on receiving commission. – Jefferson couldn’t challenge b/c the Court couldn challenge b/c the Court upheld a small provision regarding appointments. • The Ultimate Consequence. – Supreme Court gave itself the right to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional, if needed. • Also, the power to interpret and review as the power to interpret and review as necessary. • Oh, and Marbury never got the job. 14 14th Amendment • Dred Scott v. Sandford – Before the Civil War, the Supreme Court held that the federal th Ci th th th government could not ban slavery on federal lands and territories, because slaves were property. • Under the 5th Amendment, the gov’t can’t arbitrarily deny anyone their life/liberty/property without due process. • And since slaves were property, the gov’t can’t ban th slavery on federal lands (like transiting, using federal roads, post office, etc.). – It would be a violation of the slave owners’ right to property. – Led to severe reaction from Northern states. – (Fast Forward) After the Civil War, the Court lost a lot of Aft th Ci th luster. 14 14th Amendment • Passed specifically to overturn Dred Scott. • Major elements of the 14th Amendment. – Due process clause. • Can’t deprive life/liberty/property without due process of law. • Sound familiar? Yes, it’s also in the 5th amendment. – Equal protection clause. • All persons get equal protection of the laws. – Applied Constitution and amendments to the states. • States could no longer say the Bill of Rights applied only to the could no longer say the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. *Passed in 1868, was first put into effective use to protect minorities in the 1950’s. 14 14th Amendment • BUT in the meantime, it was used to protect in the meantime it was used to protect businesses. – Classified as “persons” with protections of 14th as persons with protections of 14 Amendment. – States tried to alleviate unsafe working conditions. tried to alleviate unsafe working conditions • Lochner v. N.Y. – – NY can’t limit work hours. – restricted work hours in bakeries unconstitutionally interfered with right to contract and property. » Can’t deny life/liberty/property and so forth… 14 14th Amendment • The Great Depression hits. Great Depression hits – Court still protected businesses and struck down welfare programs and regulations welfare programs and regulations. • Court under Hoover was also libertarian/conservative. – FDR says “no way!” says no way! • Threatens a court-packing plan. – “Help people, or I replace openings with extreme liberals!” • The pressure changes votes on the Court. • Eventually (through 3 terms) appointed enough Justices (8 of in fact) revamp the court and get rid of it (8 of 9, in fact) to revamp the court and get rid of it’s laissez-faire tendencies. – FDR appointed liberals anyway. 14 14th Amendment • Finally, Supreme Court (now liberal) uses Supreme Court liberal) uses 14th Amendment to justify subjecting states to the Constitution to the Constitution. – Expanded rights of the accused. • E.g., all defendants have the right to a lawyer. all defendants have the right to lawyer – Forced state legislatures to have “one personone vote” system. vote system • Some states still counted blacks as a partial person. – Expanded civil rights of minorities. Limits on Judicial Policy Making Limits on Judicial Policy Making • President’s appointment power. • Congress’s powers – To approve appointments – To pass laws and propose Constitutional amendments – To determine jurisdiction and structure of the federal determine jurisdiction and structure of the federal courts – To control funding • Enforcement problems. • Self-imposed restraints. President Appointment Power President’s Appointment Power • Power to appoint judges and justices in all levels of to appoint judges and justices in all levels of federal system. – Can choose whoever he wants. • Does NOT have to be a judge or even a lawyer. • Mostly appoints those “of like mind” politically. – It is unconstitutional for judges to declare political party. – Helps to determine the near future of policy, in terms of lawinterpreting. – E.g., 1980-1992, Reagan and Bush appointed 588 judges, or 71%. • Big reason why the judiciary today is conservative. Congressional Powers Congressional Powers • To approve appointments. approve appointments – Senate must approve appointments with a majority vote majority vote. • Since the judges/justices have lifetime appointments, the Senate has to see if it’s good for the country in the long run. – Unpopular or controversial appointments might have a hard time getting 51 votes. ti 51 Congressional Powers Congressional Powers • To pass laws – Congress can override a Supreme Court decision by amending the law in question or pass a new law. • Should pass constitutional muster, or risk being be overturned again. • E.g., Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991. Ci Ri 1964 1991 – Part of the original Civil Rights Acts was considered unconstitutionally vague, so Congress rewrote that part again. – If Supreme Court based decision on the Constitution, then an amendment would be required (a simple federal law is not enough) • See 11th, 14th, 16th, 24th, and 26th Amendments. Congressional Powers Congressional Powers • To determine jurisdiction and structure of the determine jurisdiction and structure of the federal courts – Typically, Congress changes jurisdictions to help yp with workload. • But theoretically, Congress could take away jurisdiction to shape policy shape policy. – E.g., Congress created the US Bankruptcy Court to free up the regular court system. – E.g., groups have tried to take away the Court’s jurisdiction on groups have tried to take away the Court jurisdiction on abortion and school prayer cases. – No mention in the Constitution on how many Supreme Court justices there needs to be. th Congressional Power Congressional Power • To control funding (power of the purse) control funding (power of the purse) – Congress can simply withhold funds that would have helped carry out the Court edict would have helped carry out the Court’s edict. • Theoretically, no more money for salaries, staff, bailiffs, electricity, water…. • But in reality, the federal court buildings are VERY nice (if you’ve ever visited one). – Pictured: Newly-built federal court house Newly federal court house in Seattle. Enforcement Problems Enforcement Problems • Court decisions are NOT self-executing. decisions are NOT self – Remember, the Judiciary only interprets laws. • Up to Executive to enforce the law. to Executive to enforce the law • Up to Legislature to fund the enforcement. – E.g., use of federal troops at Central HS use of federal troops at Central HS • Eisenhower ordered troops to insure that desegregation occurred peacefully. Central HS in Little Rock AR Central HS in Little Rock, AR • Imagine this scene: Arkansas National Guard, under orders from the Governor surround newly orders from the Governor, surround a newlydesegregated school, with guns drawn, to prevent black students from entering. black students from entering. – Eisenhower hears of the plan, and orders soldiers from the 101st Airborne (US Army) to escort the students. • The same 101st Airborne who jumped into Normandy before D-Day started. – The soldiers form a gauntlet to let the black students in. so gau – The Guardsmen are smart enough NOT to do anything. • The Supreme Court ordered desegregation. But the President had to enforce the order. – And Congress indirectly funded those soldiers. Th The students, being escorted by the th US Army 101st Airborne Division Self Self-imposed Restraints Restraints • Supreme Court needs to limit its workload, and Court needs to limit its workload and thus picks and chooses which cases to hear. – Will not render advisory opinions. not render advisory opinions • Or, answers to hypothetical questions. • MUST be a live controversy. be live controversy. • MUST go through proper channels. *Basically, you can’t go to the Supreme Court and ask, “If I file this case and it happens to get to you, how you would rule? rule?” Self Self-imposed Restraints Restraints • Supreme Court needs to limit its workload, and Court needs to limit its workload and thus picks and chooses which cases to hear. – Claimant must have standing to request cert. must have standing to request cert • Or, must have a vested interest in the outcome. • Sometimes you have to break a law to challenge it. you have to break law to challenge it. – Aka civil disobedience, used by MLK. – Case becomes a test case. • Class-action suits. – Claim that the illegal behavior affects a whole group (or class) of people. – Example of a class = anyone who has rented from Blockbuster between 1992-2000. Self Self-imposed Restraints Restraints • Supreme Court needs to limit its workload, and Court needs to limit its workload and thus picks and chooses which cases to hear. – Case must be ripe. must be ripe • Or, the controversy is currently at hand (not in future). – Case must not be moot. must not be moot • Or, the controversy must be alive (not in past). – Can’t be a “political question” be political question • Or, one to be answered by Executive or Congress. • E.g., Supreme Court can’t decide who’s President. But they can decide if how Florida (re)counts their votes is constitutional. Self Self-imposed Restraints Restraints • Supreme Court needs to limit its workload, and Court needs to limit its workload and thus picks and chooses which cases to hear. – Supreme Court hears about 1-2% of cases (that’s of Court hears about of cases (that of the cases that even survive long enough to have a writ of cert filed) • Usually, the Court picks cases that have a major national sweeping question. – So the Supreme Court doesn’t really care if your neighbor owes you money for running over your cat. Self Self-imposed Restraints Restraints • Judicial Restraint vs. Judicial Activism Restraint vs. Judicial Activism – Restraint – using original intent to decide cases. • What would the Framers do? • Problem: The 1780’s were a different time. – Activism – using spirit of the law as a guide, but interpret as necessary necessary. • Problem: Very undemocratic for judges to shape policy. – Appointed, life terms, with no removal process. • Most judges/justices are activists to at least some extent, i.e. they believe in some interpretation. – One notable exception is Antonin Scalia, on the US th US Supreme Court; he believes there’s no room for interpretation. Judicial Process Judicial Process • The Dual System. Dual System. – State and federal courts operate along side each other. • Civil Law – Disputes arising between two individuals or entities. arising between two individuals or entities • Criminal Law – Offense committed against society. t Simply put, if it doesn’t involve a crime, then the case is CIVIL law. Judicial Process Judicial Process • Structure – State Courts (generally) State Courts (generally) – Lower Courts • Typically divided by county. – State courts of appeal – State supreme court • Structure – federal courts – District Courts (for OC, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California) – Court of Appeals (for CA, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit) – U.S. Supreme Court Supreme Court The Circuit Courts of Appeal The Circuit Courts of Appeal Court Structure (Note how different states name their courts) Federal System (New York) Highest Court Appellate Court Trial Court Supreme Court Court of Appeals District Court Supreme Court Court of Appeal Superior Court Court of of Appeal Appellate Division Supreme Court So now you know So now you know… • On Law & Order, when the scene says Law Order when the scene says “Supreme Court, Trial Part 49,” the California equivalent is Superior Court California equivalent is “Superior Court, Trial Department 49” – Or in layman’s terms: Trial Court, Room 49. in layman terms: Trial Court Room 49 Court Structure Court Structure • Concurrent jurisdiction jurisdiction – Both state and federal courts can hear some cases. – Restrictions • For a federal civil claim, the amount in controversy must be at least $75,000. • Cases involving family (like divorce or custody) are reserved to the states. – States know better about their citizens’ values. • Patent and bankruptcy cases exclusively federal. – Interest in making these laws uniform across the country. in making these laws uniform across the country. Rule of Law Rule of Law • Basic tenets tenets – People are to be treated in accordance with the spirit of the law spirit of the law. – No one is above the law. – Laws must apply to everyone equally. must apply to everyone equally *Notice that these are merely theoretical, in a that these are merely theoretical in perfect world. Rule of Law Rule of Law • Types of law (that courts use to decide cases) of law courts use to decide cases) – Statutory law • Laws actually written down. – Common law • Legal principals derived from previous court cases. – Stare decisis – using precedent » Using to previous cases to decide cases at hand. – You consider the final decision as the primary factor. – Case law • Hybrid of statutory and common law. • Application of laws, as interpreted by the courts. th – You consider the analysis as the primary factor. Problems Problems • Workload. – Civil and criminal cases up the yin-yang. • In general, 6-12 month wait to get into federal court. general month wait to get into federal court • Even with 95% of civil cases settled out of court. • Over 90% of criminal cases are plea bargained. – Right to attorney. • Public defenders are stretched to the limit. – Can’t devote 100% to cases. – Also, not as much experience. » Many are newbies right out of law school. are newbies out of law school Problems Problems • Is Justice served? – Juries are human. • They can make mistakes. – See Rodney King cases. » State court jury found LAPD officers not guilty. » Federal court convicted 2 of the officers. court convicted of the officers – What about OJ? – Judges are human (and weird) too. • Subject to emotion and prejudices. – See Dred Scott case (slaves were property). ...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online