THE JUDICIARYInterpreting the law

3 categories of lawCriminal Law-involve cases between the government and a defendant who-punishments usually consist of jail time and/or a fineCivil Law-disputes between individuals and/or the government-the losers in these cases pay fines, not sent to jail; most of these cases are decided on the basis of precedentPublic Law-laws when the civil or criminal case involves the power of the government or rights of citizens as defined under the Constitution

Organization of Federal Court System7,500250,00050,000

Federal Judicial Circuits

The Supreme Court9 Justices-8 Associates, 1 ChiefChief is an administrative title, has no real authority, but does assign decision writing3 functions of the CourtResolve conflicts between statesMaintain national supremacy in the lawEnsure uniformity in the interpretation of the lawCourt has original and appellate jurisdictionArticle III is short, why? Framers believed the best way to prevent encroachment by the federal government was the elected branches, not the Court

Appointment processPresidents appoint justices, Senate approvesTypically justices are chosen who have federal court experience, share many of their political views and sometimes represent a region of the countryOnce nominated, the Senate judiciary committee hold confirmation hearings and vote on approvalThe hearings have typically fallen to partisan bickeringHearings are not a fair evaluation of what the justice will be like on the bench

Supreme Court perksOffice with a fireplaceDesign their own robes (Rehnquists 3 gold stripes on each sleeve modeled after a Gilbert and Sullivan play)$213,000/year salaryGym with a basketball court on top floor the highest court in the landCan use building as a catering place (Justice Kennedy held his daughters wedding reception there for 300+ guests)

The Current CourtConservativeChief John RobertsSamuel AlitoAntonin ScaliaClarence ThomasLiberalElena KaganStephen BreyerSonia SotomayorRuth Bader Ginsburg

ModerateAnthony Kennedy

2010-11 Term decisions

9-03848%8-11013%7-21215%6-345%5-41620%80100.0

5-4 Voting Blocks10Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito4Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan

US Supreme Court 2009-10 Term

NameYear of birthLaw SchoolPosition prior to appointmentAppointed byYear of serviceJohn Roberts (Chief)1955HarvardUS Court of AppealsBush II (R)2005Antonin Scalia1938HarvardUS Court of AppealsReagan (R)1986Anthony Kennedy1936HarvardUS Court of AppealsReagan1988Clarence Thomas1948YaleUS Court of AppealsBush I1991Ruth Ginsburg1933ColumbiaUS Court of AppealsClinton (D)1993Steven Breyer1938HarvardUS Court of AppealsClinton1994Samuel Alito1950YaleUS Court of AppealsBush I2006Sonia Sotomayor1954YaleUS Court of AppealsObama (D)2009Elena Kagan1960HarvardUS Solicitor GeneralObama (D)2010

Supreme Court Experience

Justices do not have to say whyRequest from higher court to lower court to send a record up for review

Majority opinionConcurring opinionDissenting opinionEach side typically receives 30 minutes to argue their case

Original intentions of FramersHamilton---Federalist No. 78no influence over the sword or the purse, but the arbiter of the will of the People.Who would ensure the government did not overstep its authority? Not Congress or President because by definition they were at the mercy of the peopleThe Courts authority, however, was to the Constitution, not the people, or Congress or PresidentTo avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedentsin every particular cast that comes before them.But event Hamilton knew better

Judicial Review-source of courts powerMarbury v. Madison (1803)Midnight judges by Adams in 1800, some commissions not delivered by order of JeffersonMarbury files a writ of mandamus in Supreme Court because Judiciary Act of 1789 gives them the authority to review such casesJohn Marshall (an Adams midnight appointment) rules that Courts duty is to decide what the law is, overturns the Judiciary Act of 1789 and establishes the power of judicial reviewToday, the Court uses it more vigorously than Framers intended

Original intentions of FramersJudicial activism-taking an active role in interpreting cases and create law in order to check others (loose interpretation)Constitution should change over timeJudicial restraint-defer decisions to legislative and executive branches because they have more expertise (strict interpretation)Constitution, i.e. the law, should stay sameCurrent conservatives of Court want to take Court backwards and undo the Liberal Court of 50s-80sMaybe the Court does represent middle America, a majority of Americans may differ on abortion, but want it regulated, which the Court allows

Checks against the CourtExecutive Branch doesnt have to enforce decisions and can control appointment processSigning statementsbullypulpitLegislative Branch appropriates the money, can pass constitutional amendments or rewrite the law overturnedThe public can always ignore the decisionThe Judicial Branch checks itself as well because of their own traditions and doctrines

Development of the Court-Founding to Civil WarCourt, under John Marshalls guidance, is to decide the relationship between nation and stateKey cases: Marbury v. Madison, McCulloch v. MarylandMarshall establishes many of the customs and traditions practiced by the Court todayHe emphasized unanimity above all else and brought to Court weight and dignityChief Justice Taney continues traditions, but hurts Courts reputation with Dred Scott decision

Development of the Court-Civil War to DepressionNow Court ask to decide the relationship between government and businessMost of the Court was dominated by justices who had been lawyers for corporations, and therefore struck down laws regulating businesses such as child labor laws, anti-trust laws, unions, minimum wagesThe dominance of this Court ended with FDR and his court packing planFuller CourtWhite Court

Development of the Court-Depression to the PresentDuring this time Court deciding the relationship between the government and the individual and selective incorporationThe Warren Court-Earl Warren was a 1953 Eisenhower appointee (one of his mistakes) who led the Court effectively and changed the direction of Court in the areas of racial segregation, criminal defendants rights, and reapportionmentA very activist Court whose decisions favored minorities or unpopular individuals over government

continuedBecause of liberalism of Warren Court, Nixon vows to change Court and appoints Warren Burger in 1969 to lead a constitutional counterrevolutionLeft most of Warren Court intact and expanded the law in sexual discrimination cases and abortionNot as successful as hoped, but Reagan and Bush able to appoint 5 more conservatives in 12 years which worked to erode the Warren Court doctrine

continuedThe Rehnquist Court has not created the revolution in constitutional law, but has slowly chipped away at liberal decisions and no longer sees itself as the defender of individual liberties and civil rightsThe Roberts Court has continued the tradition of Rehnquist, but has sought to create more unanimous decisions

*************************