Chapter 9 - Part 2

Chapter 9 - Part 2 - Judicial activism – when judges...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Chapter 9 – Part 2 Judicial doctrine – the practice of prescribing in a decision a set of rules that are to guide future decision on similar cases. Used by the Supreme Court to guide the lower courts in making decisions. o Procedural doctrine – principle of law that governs how the lower courts do their work o Substantive doctrine – principle that guides judges on which party in a case should prevail—akin to policymaking Stare decisis – “let the decision stand.” In court rulings, a reliance on precedents, or previous rulings, in formulating decision in new cases Standing – the right to bring legal action Judicial restraint – the judicial action of deferring to the policies emanating from the elected branches in the absence of a clear violation of the Constitution or established doctrine
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Judicial activism – when judges deliberately shape judicial doctrine to conform with their personal view of the Constitution and social policy • Dissenting opinion – the written opinion of one or more Supreme Court justices who disagree with the ruling of the Court’s majority. The opinion outlines the rationale for their disagreement. • Concurring opinion – a written opinion by a Supreme Court justice who agrees with the decision of the Court but disagrees with the rationale for reaching that decision • Attorney general – the head of the Justice Department, represents the federal government’s interests in law courts throughout the nation. • Senatorial courtesy – an informal practice in which senators are given veto power over federal judicial appointments in their home states...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online