LECTURE 10&11 - (Lecture 10 Read I II C.D(Marbury v...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1/8/10: (Lecture 10) Read I, II C.D. (Marbury v. Madison) Getting Heard: Granting cert: what increases the likelihood? [REVIEW] Court’s self imposed limits on deciding cases [IN TSC] o No advisory (hypothetical) opinions o Mootness o “Political questions” o Ripeness- the case that is presented we can’t hear because the issues about change that is about to happen Ex. there are impending changes in the law Standing to sue- a self limiting doctrines, when a party’s interest is not connected to the claim being made 5. Are the Courts of Appeals in conflict on the issue? [5 OF 5 WAYS OF GETTING HEARD, OTHERS ABOVE IN LAST LECTURE…] It is seen as an obligation for the Court to hear the case, which can serve as a high predictor for getting heard Getting A Decision: Legal Briefs- are the legal argument for why the courts should favor with their side Used at the cert stage as well as throughout decision making The litigants’ briefs (includes lots of footnotes, data, etc.) Third Party “amicus curiae” briefs Friend of the court briefs that anyone can submit
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Slightly different in that they will focus more on making policy arguments Oral argument- most heard and covered, some consider the least important part of the hearing Schedule- only seen in early part of the Court’s agenda, mostly research, writing, and conferences. The Library- (beautiful and used mostly for secondary sources, not open to the public) The Process- oral argument is limited from 30 minutes to 1 hour to each side in each case Used to be unlimited and has overtime, been reduced to 1 hour, reduce case load During this process, justices often interrupt lawyers to ask them questions Importance- not very important, very rare do oral arguments make a difference on the outcome They can lose cases, but they don’t win cases Anecdotal evidence Some systematic based on papers of one justice “Won few, lost many” Television, the new media and “transparency”
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 6

LECTURE 10&11 - (Lecture 10 Read I II C.D(Marbury v...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online