American Government PSC101 1007 Chapter 13

The phrase "Guardians of the Constitution and Individual Rights" is a reference to the role of the various branches and levels of government, as well as the legal and judicial systems, in protecting and upholding the principles of the U.S. Constitution and the individual rights it enshrines. This concept is central to the American system of governance and the principles upon which the United States was founded. Here's an overview of what this phrase represents:

1. The U.S. Constitution: The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the foundational document that establishes the framework for the federal government and the rights of individuals. It outlines the structure of government, enumerates the powers of each branch, and contains the Bill of Rights, which guarantees fundamental individual liberties.

2. Guardianship of Government: The various branches of the U.S. government—the executive (including the President), legislative (Congress), and judicial (federal courts)—are responsible for safeguarding the Constitution. Each branch has specific roles in interpreting, enforcing, and upholding the Constitution.

3. Separation of Powers: The principle of the separation of powers ensures that no single branch of government becomes too powerful. This separation helps prevent abuses of power and protects individual rights. The executive enforces laws, the legislature creates laws, and the judiciary interprets and applies the law to ensure its constitutionality.

4. Checks and Balances: The system of checks and balances allows each branch to review and limit the actions of the other branches. This system ensures that no branch exceeds its constitutional authority and that individual rights are protected.

5. Judicial Review: The judicial branch, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court, plays a pivotal role in interpreting the Constitution. It has the authority to review laws, executive actions, and government policies to ensure they are consistent with the Constitution.

6. Bill of Rights: The Bill of Rights, which includes the First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion, and the press), Second Amendment (right to bear arms), and other amendments, protects individual rights against government intrusion. The courts often hear cases that involve disputes over the application of these rights.

7. State and Local Government: In addition to the federal government, state and local governments have their own constitutions and systems for safeguarding individual rights. State constitutions often provide additional protections beyond those guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

8. Civil Liberties and Civil Rights: Guardianship of the Constitution and individual rights involves not only protecting civil liberties (individual freedoms from government interference) but also safeguarding civil rights (equal protection under the law, often involving issues of discrimination).

9. Public Participation: The public also plays a role in guarding the Constitution and individual rights through civic engagement, voting, advocacy, and legal action. Public opinion and activism can influence government actions and policies.

The phrase "Guardians of the Constitution and Individual Rights" underscores the fundamental role of the government, its branches, and the legal system in ensuring that the principles of the U.S. Constitution are upheld and that the rights and liberties of individuals are protected. This concept is a fundamental aspect of American democracy and the rule of law.

The dual court system in the United States refers to the existence of two separate and parallel court systems: federal and state courts. These two court systems coexist and handle distinct categories of legal cases based on their jurisdiction and the types of cases they are empowered to hear. Here's an overview of the dual court system:

1. Federal Court System:

   • The federal court system is established by the U.S. Constitution and deals with cases that involve federal law, constitutional issues, disputes between states, and cases where the United States is a party. Federal courts have limited jurisdiction and hear cases such as those involving violations of federal laws, disputes between citizens of different states (diversity jurisdiction), and cases that raise questions about the U.S. Constitution.

   • The federal court system is hierarchical, with the U.S. Supreme Court at the top. Below the Supreme Court are various federal courts of appeals, followed by U.S. district courts, which are the trial courts at the federal level.

   • Federal judges are appointed for life and serve on the basis of good behavior, which is meant to insulate them from political pressures.

2. State Court System:

   • State courts, on the other hand, are established by individual state constitutions and laws. They handle a wide range of cases that pertain to state laws, regulations, and issues that do not fall under federal jurisdiction.

   • State courts include trial courts, intermediate appellate courts, and state supreme courts. The specific structure and nomenclature of state courts can vary from one state to another.

   • State court judges are typically elected or appointed based on state-specific processes, which can vary widely.

3. Jurisdictional Differences:

   • The distinction between federal and state court jurisdiction is critical. Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, and they can only hear cases that fall within the categories specified in the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes. State courts, by contrast, have broader jurisdiction and can hear cases involving state law, family law, contract disputes, criminal cases, and civil matters that do not involve federal laws or constitutional issues.

4. Cases Involving Federal Law:

   • In situations where a legal dispute raises both federal and state law issues, a case may be heard in either federal or state court, depending on the nature of the claims and the preferences of the parties involved. Federal courts can exercise concurrent jurisdiction in certain cases.

5. Habeas Corpus: The dual court system also extends to habeas corpus petitions, where individuals who believe they are wrongfully imprisoned can seek relief through both state and federal courts.

6. Supremacy Clause: The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI) establishes that federal law is supreme and takes precedence over state law in cases of conflict. This principle underscores the importance of the federal court system in enforcing federal laws and the Constitution.

The dual court system allows for the adjudication of a wide range of legal disputes at both the federal and state levels, reflecting the United States' federal system of government. Legal matters are typically handled by the appropriate court system based on the subject matter, the parties involved, and the jurisdictional boundaries established by law.

The federal court system in the United States is a hierarchical system of courts responsible for interpreting and applying federal law, including the U.S. Constitution, and for hearing cases that involve federal jurisdiction. It consists of several levels of courts, each with specific functions and jurisdictions. Here is an overview of the federal court system:

1. U.S. Supreme Court:

   • The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest court in the federal judiciary and the final arbiter of legal disputes in the United States. It is composed of nine justices, including the Chief Justice, and has the authority to review and decide on cases of national importance.
   • The Supreme Court primarily serves as an appellate court, reviewing cases that have been appealed from lower federal courts, state supreme courts, and occasionally the highest state courts. It may also hear original jurisdiction cases, such as disputes between states.
   • The decisions of the Supreme Court set legal precedents and have a profound impact on the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and federal law.

2. U.S. Courts of Appeals (Circuit Courts):

   • Below the U.S. Supreme Court are the U.S. Courts of Appeals, also known as circuit courts. There are 13 federal judicial circuits, each covering a specific geographic area and having its own court of appeals.
   • The U.S. Courts of Appeals primarily serve as appellate courts, reviewing decisions made by the U.S. District Courts and other federal agencies. They do not conduct trials but focus on reviewing legal arguments and deciding whether lower court decisions were made correctly based on law.

3. U.S. District Courts:

   • The U.S. District Courts are the trial courts of the federal system, where most federal cases begin. There are 94 federal judicial districts across the United States, including one or more in each state.
   • U.S. District Courts have original jurisdiction in a wide range of cases, including civil, criminal, and federal matters. They conduct trials, receive evidence, and make legal determinations in accordance with federal law.

4. Specialized Courts:

   • In addition to the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Courts of Appeals, and U.S. District Courts, there are specialized federal courts and tribunals, including the U.S. Tax Court, U.S. Bankruptcy Courts, U.S. Court of International Trade, and others. These courts have limited jurisdiction and handle cases related to specific areas of federal law.

5. Magistrate Judges and Magistrate Courts:

   • Magistrate judges assist U.S. District Court judges in a variety of legal matters. They can conduct hearings and trials on certain issues, such as pretrial motions and misdemeanor cases. Magistrate courts handle less complex matters and help manage caseloads.

6. Federal Jurisdiction:

   • Federal courts have jurisdiction over cases that involve federal law, the U.S. Constitution, disputes between citizens of different states, violations of federal criminal law, and cases involving federal agencies and regulations.

Federal judges at all levels are appointed by the President of the United States, with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. They serve lifetime appointments to ensure judicial independence and impartiality.

The federal court system plays a critical role in interpreting and applying federal law and the Constitution, ensuring the rule of law, and resolving disputes at the federal level.

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the federal judiciary and the final arbiter of legal disputes in the United States. It is a critical institution with a significant impact on the interpretation and application of the U.S. Constitution and federal law. Here are some key aspects of the U.S. Supreme Court:

1. Composition: The U.S. Supreme Court is composed of nine justices, including the Chief Justice of the United States. The President of the United States nominates justices, who are then confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Justices serve lifetime appointments, which are designed to protect their independence from political pressures.

2. Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court has both original and appellate jurisdiction. It serves as an appellate court for cases that have been appealed from lower federal courts, state supreme courts, and the highest state courts. Additionally, it has original jurisdiction in cases involving disputes between states, ambassadors, and cases affecting public ministers and consuls.

3. Role: The primary role of the Supreme Court is to interpret and apply the U.S. Constitution and federal laws. Its decisions set legal precedents that guide the lower federal and state courts in resolving similar cases. The Court also plays a key role in protecting individual rights and civil liberties.

4. Appellate Function: The Supreme Court typically functions as an appellate court, hearing cases on appeal from lower courts. Parties who believe their constitutional rights have been violated or who seek to clarify areas of law can petition the Court for review. The Court can choose to accept or deny review of a case.

5. Decisions: Supreme Court decisions are binding on all other courts in the United States. They have far-reaching implications for the legal landscape and society as a whole. A majority of the justices' votes is required to make a decision, and these decisions can have significant legal, social, and political impacts.

6. Legal Arguments: The Court hears oral arguments from the parties involved in a case, as well as amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs from interested parties. These proceedings allow the justices to ask questions, seek clarification, and engage in discussions with the lawyers.

7. Landmark Cases: Throughout its history, the Supreme Court has issued numerous landmark decisions, including cases such as Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which addressed important issues of civil rights, abortion, and same-sex marriage, respectively.

8. Legal Philosophy: Justices on the Supreme Court often have different legal philosophies, which can be broadly categorized as conservative, liberal, or moderate. These philosophies influence their interpretations of the Constitution and federal laws.

9. Public Confidence and Trust: The Court's decisions and its reputation for impartiality are crucial for maintaining public confidence in the judicial system. The Court's legitimacy depends on the perception of its independence and adherence to the rule of law.

10. Access to the Court: The Supreme Court plays a selective role in choosing cases, with a limited caseload. As a result, it only hears a small fraction of the cases brought before it.

The U.S. Supreme Court is a vital institution in the American system of government, providing a critical check on the powers of the other branches and helping to shape legal interpretations, rights, and liberties in the United States. Its role in American democracy is significant and far-reaching.

Judicial decision-making and implementation by the Supreme Court of the United States is a complex process with significant implications for the interpretation and application of the law. Here is an overview of how decisions are made and implemented by the Supreme Court:

1. Case Selection:

• The Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions for review each year, but it only accepts a small percentage of cases. The Court typically selects cases that raise significant legal issues, have broad implications, or involve conflicts among lower courts (circuit splits).

2. Briefing and Oral Arguments:

• Once the Court agrees to hear a case, the parties involved submit legal briefs that present their arguments and legal reasoning. The Court may also receive amicus curiae briefs from interested parties. Oral arguments are held, during which attorneys present their cases and answer questions from the justices.

3. Deliberation and Decision:

• After oral arguments, the justices deliberate in private. Each justice discusses the case and presents their views. Decisions are reached through majority votes. The Chief Justice, if in the majority, assigns the writing of the majority opinion. If the Chief Justice is not in the majority, the most senior justice in the majority assigns the opinion.

4. Majority Opinion:

• The majority opinion explains the Court's decision, the legal reasoning behind it, and its implications. It serves as legal precedent for future cases. The opinion may be authored by any justice in the majority, not just the Chief Justice.

5. Concurring and Dissenting Opinions:

• Justices who agree with the outcome but have different legal reasoning may write concurring opinions. Justices who disagree with the majority decision may write dissenting opinions. These opinions help clarify legal arguments and can influence future legal debates.

6. Implementation:

• The Supreme Court's decisions are binding on all other courts in the United States, federal and state. Courts at all levels are required to follow the precedents set by the Supreme Court. This is known as "stare decisis," the legal principle of following established precedents.

7. Enforcement:

• The enforcement of Supreme Court decisions often falls on lower courts, government agencies, and other relevant parties. For example, if the Court issues a ruling on a civil rights matter, it is up to lower courts and law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with the decision.

8. Public Reaction:

• Supreme Court decisions can have significant societal and political impacts. They can be met with a wide range of public reactions, from widespread support to controversy and criticism.

9. Limitations of the Court:

• The Supreme Court cannot directly enforce its decisions; it relies on other branches of government and agencies for implementation. Public opinion, legal, and political factors may also influence the degree to which its decisions are followed.

10. Overruling and Reinterpretation:

• Over time, the Court may revisit or reinterpret its own precedents. In some cases, the Court may overrule a previous decision if it believes it was wrongly decided or if social and legal circumstances have changed.

The Supreme Court's role in interpreting the U.S. Constitution and federal laws, as well as its authority in shaping legal precedent, makes it a central institution in American governance and the legal system. Its decisions play a significant role in determining the rights and liberties of individuals and in shaping the course of American jurisprudence.

Filling judge and justice positions at the federal level is a significant responsibility with far-reaching implications for the U.S. legal system and society. Several important considerations should guide the selection of individuals for these positions:

1. Legal Qualifications and Expertise:

   • Candidates should possess strong legal qualifications and expertise in the field of law. This includes a deep understanding of the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and legal principles. They should have a solid foundation in legal education and experience, often as judges, attorneys, or legal scholars.

2. Judicial Temperament:

   • A crucial consideration is the candidate's judicial temperament. Judges and justices must be impartial, fair, and committed to upholding the rule of law. They should be even-tempered and capable of making reasoned, objective decisions.

3. Ethical Integrity:

   • Candidates must have a high degree of ethical integrity. They should be beyond reproach in their personal and professional conduct. Ethical standards are essential for maintaining public trust and the credibility of the legal system.

4. Commitment to the Rule of Law:

   • Judges and justices must have a demonstrated commitment to the rule of law. They should prioritize legal principles over personal beliefs, ideologies, or political considerations when making decisions.

5. Diversity and Representation:

   • Diversity among judges and justices is essential to ensure a judiciary that reflects the nation's demographics and experiences. Diverse perspectives contribute to a more inclusive and equitable legal system.

6. Legal Interpretation Philosophy:

   • Understanding a candidate's legal interpretation philosophy is critical. While it is essential that candidates interpret and apply the law faithfully, there may be different judicial philosophies, such as textualism, originalism, or a living constitution approach. It is important to consider how a candidate's philosophy aligns with the prevailing legal principles.

7. Respect for Precedent:

   • A willingness to respect legal precedent, even when the judge or justice may personally disagree with it, is crucial for maintaining stability and predictability in the legal system.

8. Appellate or Trial Experience:

   • Depending on the position, experience as a trial judge, appellate judge, or attorney may be important. Trial judges handle cases at the district level, while appellate judges and justices review decisions made by lower courts.

9. Public Perception and Trust:

   • Public trust in the judiciary is vital. Candidates should be individuals who can inspire confidence in the impartiality and fairness of the federal courts. A perception of political bias or partisanship can undermine this trust.

10. Comprehensive Vetting Process:

    • A thorough vetting process should be conducted to assess a candidate's qualifications, ethics, and potential conflicts of interest. This process should include background checks, financial disclosures, and an evaluation of prior legal decisions.

11. Senate Confirmation:

    • The Senate's role in the confirmation process is crucial. Senators should rigorously evaluate each candidate, considering their qualifications, temperament, and commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law.

12. Public Engagement and Transparency:

    • The appointment process should be transparent, and the public should have opportunities to learn about and provide input on candidates. Transparency helps maintain confidence in the judiciary.

The most important considerations in filling judge and justice positions at the federal level are rooted in the principles of a fair, impartial, and effective legal system. Appointing individuals who meet these criteria ensures that the judiciary can uphold the rule of law and protect individual rights, ultimately serving the best interests of the nation and its citizens.

What should be the most important considerations when filling judge and justice positions at the federal level? Why?

The people picked should have judicial as well as governmental experience and education to match that experience. The government runs a lot differently then most systems even when it comes to working as a government employee you see the great differences from working on a private level. Everything progresses much slower and there's no quick decisions to change things unless it's changed in place as a drastic change which fixes security holes. Everything is done on paper and slow. This is why when it comes to something as important as judge or justice positions you would only want the most experienced individuals that have proper education and know how the system works and you also don't want people who can be swayed or bought off like many can. You want people who have the education not only in public speaking but written communication. Also when they fail or do wrong it has implications to hurt millions of people so it's a very heavy task that could hurt a lot of people if the wrong choice for those positions is taken. It's good to see a wide qualification range being used and hopefully as time goes on that will continue to grow. When it comes to discrimination and such unfortunately we still see a lot of that happening but as time goes on we should see less of that and more diversity and inclusion. As for presidents choosing judge not sure whether that's always a great idea considering president's' term is so short compared to a judge who is life time but so far we haven't seen any candidates that have been bad picks. But I could see that being the case in terms of if we do get a president that doesn't care or isn't out looking for the best interests of the people. 

Judicial decisions in the United States, including those made by the federal courts, can be revised or overturned, but the process for doing so is subject to specific legal principles and mechanisms. Here are some key points regarding the revision and reversal of judicial decisions:

1. Stare Decisis:

   • The principle of "stare decisis" is a foundational concept in the U.S. legal system. It means "to stand by things decided" and serves as a precedent. Courts often adhere to past decisions and consider them binding on future cases with similar issues. Stare decisis provides stability and predictability in the law.

2. Overruling Precedent:

   • While precedent is a strong force in legal decision-making, it is not an absolute rule. Courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have the authority to overrule or reverse previous decisions when they believe that a prior decision was wrongly decided or no longer applicable. Overruling precedent typically requires a strong justification.

3. Supreme Court Precedent:

   • When the U.S. Supreme Court overrules its own precedent, it can have a profound impact on the interpretation of the law. Overruling a precedent requires a majority of the Court to agree that the previous decision was incorrect or has become outdated.

4. Case Reconsideration:

   • In the federal court system, parties in a case may file petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc (before the entire court) to request reconsideration of a decision. This allows for potential revisions at the appellate level.

5. Legislative Action:

   • In some cases, Congress can revise or overturn a judicial decision by passing legislation that clarifies or changes the law in response to a specific case or issue.

6. Amendment of the Constitution:

   • In cases where a judicial decision is based on the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, the Constitution itself can be amended through the formal amendment process outlined in Article V. Constitutional amendments are rare but can directly change the legal framework established by the Court.

7. Enforcement and Compliance:

   • Even if a judicial decision is revised or reversed, the enforcement of such decisions can be challenging. Lower courts, government agencies, and other relevant parties must adapt to and comply with the new legal interpretation.

8. Public Opinion and Political Context:

   • The revision or reversal of judicial decisions can be influenced by public opinion, shifts in legal philosophy, and changes in the composition of the Court. Political and social contexts can play a role in the reconsideration of prior decisions.

9. Longevity of Precedent:

   • Some Supreme Court decisions remain settled law for many years or decades, while others may be revisited relatively quickly. The longevity of precedent varies based on the nature of the decision, its societal impact, and shifts in legal philosophy.

In summary, while judicial decisions are typically binding as precedent, they are not immutable. Courts have the authority to revise or overrule previous decisions, but this process is governed by legal principles and requirements. Revision of decisions may occur in response to changes in legal thinking, societal attitudes, or the specific circumstances of individual cases.

In the context of judicial decision-making, a "dissenting opinion" is a written opinion issued by a judge or justice who disagrees with the majority opinion of the court in a particular case. Dissenting opinions provide an alternative view of the legal issues presented in the case and explain why the dissenting judge or justice believes the majority's decision is incorrect. Here are some key points about dissenting opinions:

1. Purpose of Dissents:

   • Dissenting opinions serve several important purposes. They offer a dissenting judge's or justice's perspective on the law and its application to the case, providing an alternative legal interpretation. Dissents can challenge the majority's reasoning, highlight potential flaws in the decision, and propose alternative legal principles.

2. Legal Analysis:

   • Dissenting opinions typically contain detailed legal analysis, including references to precedent (prior court decisions), legislative intent, and constitutional interpretation. The dissenting judge or justice may argue that the majority's decision misinterprets the law or that it fails to consider relevant legal principles.

3. Stare Decisis:

   • Dissents can be influential in shaping future legal thinking and may contribute to changes in the law. While they do not have the immediate force of precedent (binding authority), they can be cited and discussed in later cases. Over time, dissenting opinions may lead to the revision or overruling of majority decisions.

4. Legal Clarity and Debate:

   • Dissents contribute to the development of legal doctrine and promote intellectual debate within the legal community and society at large. They can help clarify the legal issues at stake and foster discussions about the merits of the majority's decision.

5. Expressing Principle and Values:

   • Judges and justices who write dissenting opinions often do so to express their deeply held legal principles and values. These dissents can be seen as an important exercise in the exercise of judicial independence and an opportunity to articulate a judge's or justice's beliefs about the law.

6. Visibility and Public Understanding:

   • Dissenting opinions are accessible to the public and can enhance public understanding of the legal process. They shed light on the complexities of legal issues, the diversity of judicial perspectives, and the checks and balances inherent in the judicial system.

7. Appellate and Supreme Court Dissents:

   • Dissenting opinions can be found at various levels of the judiciary, including federal and state appellate courts. The U.S. Supreme Court, in particular, often sees notable and influential dissenting opinions due to the significance of its cases.

8. Potential Impact on Future Decisions:

   • While dissenting opinions are not legally binding as precedent, they can influence future judicial decisions, particularly if a shift in the composition of the court or changing legal philosophies leads to a reconsideration of the issues raised in a dissent.

In summary, dissenting opinions in judicial decisions play a vital role in the legal system. They allow judges and justices to express their differing views, contribute to legal debates, and provide alternative interpretations of the law, which can ultimately shape the evolution of legal principles and jurisprudence over time.

Common law is a legal system characterized by the development of legal principles and rules through judicial decisions and precedents, rather than solely through statutes and legislation. It is one of the two primary legal systems in the world, the other being civil law. Common law systems are prominent in countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and several other English-speaking nations. Here are the key features of common law:

1. Precedent and Stare Decisis: One of the central features of common law is the reliance on judicial decisions and precedents to guide future legal decisions. When a court makes a decision in a case, that decision becomes a precedent that other courts can refer to when deciding similar cases. This principle is known as "stare decisis," which means "to stand by things decided."

2. Case-Based System: Common law is a case-based system, which means that legal principles are established and refined through the outcomes of individual cases. Courts at all levels consider the rulings of higher courts, with the decisions of the highest court in a jurisdiction often being the most influential.

3. Adversarial System: Common law systems typically operate under an adversarial system, where two opposing parties present their cases before a neutral judge or jury. The judge's role is to interpret the law and ensure a fair process, while the parties (plaintiff and defendant) present evidence and arguments.

4. Judicial Lawmaking: Judges play a significant role in shaping the law. They interpret statutes and the common law, filling gaps in the law and adapting it to changing circumstances. This process of judicial lawmaking is an important aspect of common law systems.

5. Flexible and Evolving: Common law is known for its flexibility and adaptability. Legal principles can evolve over time as courts address new and complex issues. This adaptability allows the law to stay relevant and responsive to changing social, economic, and technological conditions.

6. Legal Precedents: Common law relies heavily on the doctrine of legal precedents, which includes not only the decisions of higher courts but also the reasoning and principles behind those decisions. Courts are expected to follow precedents in similar cases to ensure consistency in legal outcomes.

7. Legal Profession: The legal profession, including lawyers and judges, plays a central role in common law systems. Lawyers argue cases, and judges apply legal principles to reach decisions. The legal profession is responsible for interpreting and applying the law.

8. Habeas Corpus: Common law has a strong tradition of safeguarding individual rights, including the right to habeas corpus, which is a legal action that protects individuals from unlawful detention by the government.

9. Jury Trials: Common law systems often use juries in certain types of cases, particularly criminal trials. A jury is composed of citizens who are responsible for determining the facts of a case and delivering a verdict.

10. Common Law and Equity: In some common law jurisdictions, there is a distinction between common law and equity courts. Equity courts historically focused on principles of fairness and justice, while common law courts addressed legal rights and remedies. Today, many common law jurisdictions have merged these two systems.

Common law continues to be a fundamental legal system in many countries, and its principles have influenced legal systems worldwide. While statutes and legislation have gained importance in modern legal systems, the principles of precedent and stare decisis remain central to the common law tradition.

A civil court, also known as a civil court of law, is a branch of the legal system that deals with civil disputes and legal matters that do not involve criminal allegations. Civil courts play a crucial role in resolving conflicts between individuals, organizations, or entities by providing a forum for parties to seek remedies and settlements for various types of non-criminal disputes. Here are the key features and functions of civil courts:

1. Civil Disputes: Civil courts handle a wide range of civil disputes, including but not limited to:

   • Contract disputes: Cases involving breach of contract, non-performance, or other contractual issues.
   • Personal injury cases: Claims for compensation due to injuries resulting from accidents, negligence, or intentional harm.
   • Family law matters: Such as divorce, child custody, spousal support, and property division.
   • Property disputes: Cases related to real estate, land ownership, and property rights.
   • Employment disputes: Including wrongful termination, discrimination, and workplace-related issues.
   • Debt collection: Cases where creditors seek to recover unpaid debts from debtors.
   • Tort claims: Civil wrongs that result in harm, such as negligence, defamation, or invasion of privacy.

2. No Criminal Charges: Civil courts do not handle criminal cases. In a civil court, individuals or entities file lawsuits (civil actions) against each other seeking legal remedies, financial compensation, or equitable relief, rather than criminal penalties like incarceration.

3. Burden of Proof: In civil cases, the burden of proof typically rests on the plaintiff (the party bringing the lawsuit). The plaintiff must provide evidence to support their claims and persuade the court that their case is valid.

4. Monetary Compensation: A common outcome of civil court cases is the awarding of monetary damages. These damages may be compensatory (intended to compensate the victim for losses) or punitive (intended to punish the wrongdoer).

5. Equitable Relief: In some cases, civil courts can issue equitable relief, which may involve injunctions, restraining orders, specific performance, or other non-monetary remedies designed to address the issue in question.

6. Civil Procedure: Civil courts follow specific procedures and rules of evidence, which vary by jurisdiction but generally ensure due process and a fair trial for all parties involved.

7. Jury Trials: Depending on the jurisdiction and the nature of the case, civil trials may be conducted before a judge or a jury. Jury trials are common in many civil cases, especially personal injury and tort cases.

8. Legal Representation: Parties in civil court cases have the right to legal representation. Attorneys representing the plaintiff and defendant present their arguments, examine witnesses, and make legal submissions.

9. Enforcement of Judgments: Civil courts have the authority to issue judgments and enforce them through mechanisms such as wage garnishment, property liens, or other legal means to ensure that the judgment is satisfied.

10. Appeals: In most jurisdictions, parties who are dissatisfied with the outcome of a civil case can appeal the decision to a higher court. The appeals process allows for a review of the lower court's decisions to ensure legal correctness.

Civil courts are essential for providing individuals and organizations with a legal avenue to resolve disputes, seek remedies, and ensure that legal rights are upheld. These courts play a vital role in maintaining social order, protecting individuals' rights, and providing access to justice for all members of society.

The appointment of judges in the United States, particularly at the federal level, involves various individuals and institutions. These appointments are significant because they have a long-lasting impact on the legal system and the interpretation of the law. Several key actors and institutions exert significant influence on judicial appointments:

1. The President:

   • The President of the United States plays a central role in judicial appointments. The President nominates individuals to fill vacant federal judgeships, including those in the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Courts of Appeals, and U.S. District Courts. The President's choices reflect their judicial philosophy, political ideology, and policy goals.

2. The Senate:

   • The U.S. Senate is responsible for confirming or rejecting the President's judicial nominations. The Senate Judiciary Committee conducts hearings to evaluate the qualifications and fitness of nominees. Senators from both parties have the power to question, approve, or reject judicial nominees through a majority vote.

3. Interest Groups and Advocacy Organizations:

   • Interest groups, advocacy organizations, and legal associations actively influence the judicial appointment process. They lobby the President and Senators to consider nominees who align with their policy preferences and ideologies. These groups may support or oppose specific nominees based on their records and positions.

4. Senators and Home-State Senators:

   • Senators from the nominee's home state often have significant influence over judicial appointments in their states. They can recommend candidates to the President, scrutinize nominees, and use the "blue slip" process, which allows home-state Senators to approve or block judicial nominations in their states.

5. The American Bar Association (ABA):

   • The ABA evaluates the qualifications of judicial nominees and provides its assessments to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Although the ABA's assessments are not binding, they are considered influential in the confirmation process.

6. Public Opinion and Media:

   • Public opinion and media coverage can also influence judicial appointments. High-profile nominations, particularly those to the U.S. Supreme Court, often receive substantial media attention, and public sentiment can impact the Senate's decisions.

7. Previous Judges and Justices:

   • Current and retired judges and justices, including those on the U.S. Supreme Court, may offer recommendations and influence the selection of their successors. Their endorsements and opinions can carry weight in the appointment process.

8. Legal Academics and Scholars:

   • Legal scholars and academics who are experts in specific areas of law may provide input and recommendations to the President and the Senate regarding potential judicial nominees.

9. Political Party Leadership:

   • Party leaders in Congress and the White House can play a role in shaping the President's choices for judicial appointments, particularly when their party holds the presidency and Senate majority.

10. Nominee's Record and Qualifications:

    • A nominee's legal qualifications, experience, and judicial philosophy are critical factors that influence their appointment. Senators and the public scrutinize nominees' records and prior decisions to assess their suitability for the bench.

The influence of these actors on judicial appointments can vary depending on the level of the court and the specific nomination. For appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court, in particular, the President's choice and the Senate's confirmation process are typically subjects of intense public and political scrutiny. Overall, the appointment of judges is a highly political process that can shape the direction of the judiciary and have a lasting impact on the interpretation and application of the law.

Judges at the federal level in the United States are selected through a process that involves several steps, including nomination, evaluation, and confirmation. The specific procedures for selecting federal judges, particularly judges at the U.S. district and appellate court levels, are as follows:

1. Nomination by the President:

   • The process begins with the President of the United States nominating an individual to fill a vacant federal judgeship. This nomination typically occurs after consultation with the White House Counsel's Office, the Department of Justice, and, in the case of U.S. Senators, the home-state Senators of the nominee.

2. Senate Judiciary Committee Review:

   • The nomination is then referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee for review. This committee conducts a thorough examination of the nominee's qualifications, legal background, and other relevant factors. The committee may hold confirmation hearings during which the nominee is questioned about their qualifications and judicial philosophy.

3. ABA Evaluation:

   • The American Bar Association (ABA) often evaluates the qualifications of federal judicial nominees. The ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary provides assessments of the nominee's professional competence, integrity, and judicial temperament. Although the ABA's evaluations are not binding, they are considered influential in the confirmation process.

4. Senate Judiciary Committee Vote:

   • Following the review and confirmation hearings, the Senate Judiciary Committee votes to recommend whether the nominee should be confirmed. If the committee approves the nominee, the nomination proceeds to the full Senate.

5. Full Senate Confirmation Vote:

   • The nominee's confirmation is determined by a majority vote in the full U.S. Senate. Senators debate the nominee's qualifications, legal philosophy, and other factors before voting to confirm or reject the nomination. A simple majority is required for confirmation.

6. Confirmation and Commission:

   • If the Senate confirms the nominee, the President appoints the individual as a federal judge. A commission is issued to the new judge, formalizing their appointment. They can then begin serving on the federal bench.

The process for selecting and confirming federal judges applies to judges at various levels of the federal judiciary, including U.S. District Courts, U.S. Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the process for appointing U.S. Supreme Court Justices is subject to additional scrutiny and often involves more significant public and political attention due to the high profile and lifetime tenure of these appointments.

It's important to note that the selection process for federal judges is subject to political considerations and can vary depending on the party in power, the ideological balance of the Senate, and the specific nominee's background and qualifications. Judicial appointments are significant because they have a long-lasting impact on the federal judiciary and the interpretation and application of the law.

"Chisholm v. Georgia" is a significant U.S. Supreme Court case that was decided in 1793. It is notable for several reasons, including its impact on the legal doctrine of sovereign immunity and its role in the ratification of the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Background: The case of Chisholm v. Georgia arose from a dispute between Alexander Chisholm, a citizen of South Carolina, and the state of Georgia. Chisholm was the executor of the estate of Robert Farquhar, a South Carolinian who had loaned money to the state of Georgia during the American Revolutionary War. After Farquhar's death, Chisholm sought to collect the debt from Georgia, which had failed to repay it.

Legal Issue: The central legal issue in the case was whether a citizen of one state could sue another state in federal court. Chisholm argued that Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution allowed him to do so. The relevant part of the Constitution states that federal judicial power "shall extend to all Cases... between a State and Citizens of another State."

Supreme Court Decision: In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Alexander Chisholm. The Court held that a state could be sued in federal court by a citizen of another state. This ruling was based on the text of the Constitution, which extended federal judicial jurisdiction to cases between a state and citizens of other states.

Impact:

1. Eleventh Amendment: The decision in Chisholm v. Georgia generated significant controversy and backlash from the states. In response to the decision, the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution was proposed by Congress in 1794 and ratified in 1795. The Eleventh Amendment explicitly prohibits federal lawsuits against states by citizens of another state or foreign countries, effectively overturning the Chisholm decision. The Eleventh Amendment reflects the principle of sovereign immunity, which grants states immunity from most lawsuits in federal court.

2. Sovereign Immunity: Chisholm v. Georgia and the subsequent ratification of the Eleventh Amendment established the concept of sovereign immunity, which remains a fundamental legal principle. Sovereign immunity generally protects states from being sued in their own courts or in federal courts, with certain exceptions.

3. Legal Legacy: The case has left a lasting legacy in constitutional law by defining the limits of federal jurisdiction over lawsuits against states and the relationship between states and the federal government.

In summary, Chisholm v. Georgia was a landmark Supreme Court case that led to the ratification of the Eleventh Amendment and the establishment of the principle of sovereign immunity, which continues to shape the legal landscape of federal-state relations in the United States.

Appellate jurisdiction refers to a court's authority or power to hear and review cases on appeal, which means cases that have already been heard and decided by a lower court (the trial court or court of original jurisdiction). Appellate courts do not conduct trials or receive new evidence; instead, they focus on examining legal issues, procedures, and the application of the law in cases that have been appealed. Here are the key aspects of appellate jurisdiction:

1. Review of Lower Court Decisions: Appellate courts review the decisions made by lower courts to ensure that they were legally correct and just. This includes reviewing both civil and criminal cases.

2. No New Evidence: Appellate courts do not hear witnesses, receive new evidence, or conduct trials. Instead, they rely on the record of the case, which includes transcripts of court proceedings, legal briefs, and other documents submitted during the trial.

3. Legal Issues and Errors: Appellate courts focus on legal issues and errors that may have occurred during the trial or in the lower court's decision. These issues can include errors in the application of the law, procedural mistakes, and constitutional questions.

4. De Novo vs. Standard of Review: Appellate courts may apply different standards of review, depending on the type of issue being considered. In some cases, they conduct a de novo review, meaning they review the issue without deferring to the lower court's decision. In other cases, they may use a more deferential standard, such as the "clearly erroneous" standard for findings of fact.

5. Types of Appellate Courts:

   • The United States has a federal appellate system, including the U.S. Courts of Appeals, which handle appeals from federal district courts. Each state also has its own appellate courts that handle appeals from state trial courts. In some states, the highest appellate court is known as the Supreme Court.

6. Appellate Process: The process of appealing a case generally involves filing a notice of appeal, presenting written arguments (briefs), and, in some cases, participating in oral arguments before the appellate judges. Appellate courts issue written decisions explaining their rulings.

7. Remedy: Appellate courts can overturn, affirm, or modify the lower court's decision. They may also remand the case back to the lower court for further proceedings if errors are identified.

8. Precedent: Appellate court decisions can set legal precedents that guide future cases. These precedents become part of the body of law known as "case law" or "common law."

Appellate jurisdiction is a fundamental aspect of the legal system, as it provides a mechanism for reviewing and correcting errors made by lower courts and ensuring that the law is applied consistently and fairly. It plays a crucial role in upholding the rule of law and protecting individuals' rights.

The "Rule of Four" is a principle associated with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision-making process, particularly concerning the Court's practice of granting certiorari (agreeing to hear a case). The Rule of Four is not a formal rule or law but rather an informal practice that guides the Court's decision to consider cases for review. Here's how the Rule of Four works:

1. Petition for Certiorari: To have a case reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, the party seeking review (often the petitioner or the party that lost in a lower court) files a petition for certiorari, commonly referred to as a "cert petition." This petition outlines the legal issues and reasons why the Court should hear the case.

2. Review by the Justices: The cert petitions are circulated among the nine Supreme Court Justices. Each Justice, along with their clerks, reviews the petitions to determine if they believe the case merits further consideration by the Court.

3. Conference: The Justices discuss the cert petitions in a private conference. They may express their views on which cases they believe should be granted certiorari.

4. Vote: Under the Rule of Four, the decision to grant certiorari requires the agreement of at least four of the nine Justices. If four or more Justices agree to hear a case, the Court grants certiorari, and the case is placed on the Court's docket for the upcoming term.

5. Issuing a Writ of Certiorari: If the Rule of Four is satisfied, the Court issues a formal order called a "writ of certiorari," commonly referred to as a "grant of certiorari." This writ directs the lower court to send up the record of the case for the Supreme Court's review.

The Rule of Four is intended to serve as a check on the Court's discretion in deciding which cases to hear. It ensures that a significant minority of Justices believes that a case has merit and warrants Supreme Court review. The practice also allows the Court to manage its caseload, as it receives a large number of cert petitions each year but can only hear a limited number of cases.

Once the Supreme Court grants certiorari and hears a case, it issues a decision that can have a significant impact on the interpretation of the law and the resolution of important legal issues. The Rule of Four plays a crucial role in the Court's process of selecting cases for review.

"Stare decisis" is a Latin legal term that translates to "to stand by things decided" in English. It is a fundamental principle of the common law legal system and is also known as the doctrine of precedent. Stare decisis refers to the practice of courts following and applying the legal precedents (previous court decisions) when deciding similar cases with similar legal issues. Here are the key aspects of stare decisis:

1. Precedent: Legal precedent refers to past court decisions, especially those made by higher courts, that serve as authoritative examples for future cases. Precedents are essential in the common law system, which relies on the development and application of case law.

2. Binding and Persuasive Precedents: Not all precedents are equal. Some precedents are binding, meaning they must be followed by lower courts within the same jurisdiction. Higher courts' decisions are binding on lower courts. Persuasive precedents, on the other hand, are not binding but can be considered and cited as persuasive authority in making legal arguments.

3. Hierarchy of Courts: The principle of stare decisis operates within the context of the court hierarchy. Decisions from higher courts within the same jurisdiction, such as an appellate court or a supreme court, are typically binding on lower courts within that jurisdiction.

4. Relevance of the Case: For a precedent to be followed, the legal issues in the previous case must be substantially similar to those in the current case. Courts may distinguish the facts and legal principles of the prior case if they are not directly applicable.

5. Legal Stability: Stare decisis promotes legal stability and predictability by providing a consistent framework for interpreting and applying the law. It prevents constant changes in legal principles and allows individuals to understand and rely on established legal standards.

6. Overruling Precedents: While stare decisis generally encourages courts to follow precedent, it is not an absolute rule. Courts have the authority to overrule or overturn prior decisions if they find them to be incorrect or outdated. Overruling precedents is typically done sparingly and often requires a compelling reason.

7. Vertical and Horizontal Stare Decisis: Vertical stare decisis refers to the practice of following precedent from higher courts to lower courts within the same jurisdiction. Horizontal stare decisis involves courts in one jurisdiction considering decisions from courts in another jurisdiction, such as when state courts consider federal court decisions or when federal courts consider state court decisions.

8. Supreme Court Precedent: Decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court are binding on all lower federal courts and state courts. Supreme Court precedent is especially significant in shaping the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and federal law.

Stare decisis is essential for maintaining the rule of law and ensuring consistency and fairness in legal decisions. It helps avoid arbitrary or unpredictable outcomes in the legal system. However, it also allows for the evolution of legal principles over time through the process of distinguishing, modifying, or overruling precedent when necessary.

"Marbury v. Madison" is one of the most important and influential Supreme Court cases in U.S. history. Decided in 1803, it established the principle of judicial review, which empowers the judiciary, and, in particular, the U.S. Supreme Court, to review and declare the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. Here are the key details of the case:

Background:

1. Midnight Judges: In the final days of his presidency, John Adams, the second President of the United States, appointed a significant number of federal judges, often referred to as the "Midnight Judges," to the federal courts.

2. Unfilled Commissions: William Marbury was one of the individuals appointed as a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia, but he did not receive his official commission before the end of Adams's term.

3. Jefferson's Inauguration: Thomas Jefferson was inaugurated as the third President of the United States on March 4, 1801. His Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver Marbury's commission.

Legal Issue:

The key legal issue in Marbury v. Madison was whether Marbury had the right to his commission and whether the Supreme Court had the authority to order its delivery.

Supreme Court Decision:

The U.S. Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, issued a landmark decision in Marbury v. Madison:

1. Marbury's Right to Commission: The Court held that William Marbury had a legal right to his commission as a justice of the peace, and the failure to deliver it was a violation of that right.

2. Judicial Review Established: However, the Court also ruled that the Judiciary Act of 1789, which Marbury had relied on to bring his case directly to the Supreme Court, was unconstitutional. In doing so, the Court established the principle of judicial review, declaring that it was the Court's duty to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress and to strike them down if they violated the Constitution.

3. Limits on the Supreme Court: While recognizing its authority to review the constitutionality of laws, the Court clarified that there were limitations on the cases it could hear. Not all cases involving a claimed violation of rights were subject to the Court's jurisdiction. In this case, the Court concluded that the section of the Judiciary Act giving it the authority to issue the writ of mandamus was unconstitutional.

Impact:

1. Judicial Review: Marbury v. Madison is most renowned for establishing the principle of judicial review, which has become a cornerstone of constitutional law in the United States. It empowers the judiciary to determine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions, making the courts a crucial branch of government for maintaining the balance of powers.

2. Marshall's Legacy: Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in this case solidified the Supreme Court's role as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and greatly enhanced the Court's authority.

3. Precedent: The decision set a precedent for the Court's power of judicial review and has been cited in countless cases to affirm the Court's authority to interpret the Constitution.

Marbury v. Madison is regarded as a pivotal case in U.S. legal history, shaping the role of the judiciary and its ability to protect the Constitution's integrity by ensuring that all laws and government actions comply with the nation's supreme law.

The Solicitor General of the United States is a key legal officer within the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and plays a significant role in representing the federal government before the U.S. Supreme Court and other appellate courts. The Solicitor General is one of the highest-ranking officials in the DOJ and serves as the government's principal advocate in important legal matters. Here are the key responsibilities and functions of the Solicitor General:

1. Representing the United States in Court:

   • The primary duty of the Solicitor General is to represent the United States in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. This includes arguing the government's position in oral arguments and preparing written briefs. The Solicitor General is often referred to as the "Tenth Justice" due to their close involvement in Supreme Court cases.

2. Reviewing Appeals:

   • The Solicitor General reviews and decides whether to recommend that the federal government file appeals to the Supreme Court or other appellate courts. They assess the legal merit and significance of cases in which the government is a party.

3. Legal Adviser to the Executive Branch:

   • The Solicitor General provides legal advice to the President, the Attorney General, and other executive branch officials on important legal and constitutional issues.

4. Amicus Curiae Briefs:

   • The Solicitor General's office often submits amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs in cases where the government is not a party but has a significant interest or perspective to offer. These briefs provide guidance to the court on important legal issues.

5. Supervising the Office of the Solicitor General:

   • The Solicitor General oversees a team of deputy solicitors general, assistants, and staff who help prepare cases, briefs, and arguments. This office is responsible for handling the government's appellate litigation.

6. Defending Federal Statutes and Regulations:

   • The Solicitor General defends the constitutionality of federal laws and regulations when they are challenged in the courts. They argue on behalf of the government to ensure that federal policies and legislation are upheld.

7. Advocacy in Lower Courts:

   • While the Solicitor General's primary focus is on appellate courts, they may also become involved in important cases in lower federal courts when it has broader implications for federal law and constitutional interpretation.

8. Selecting and Developing Legal Talent:

   • The Solicitor General plays a role in selecting and developing legal talent within the DOJ, including deputy solicitors general and assistants, who will go on to represent the government in various legal matters.

The Solicitor General is appointed by the President of the United States, subject to Senate confirmation. The position is held by a seasoned legal professional with a strong background in constitutional law and appellate advocacy. The Solicitor General's influence and importance in shaping legal policy and precedent cannot be overstated, as their work directly impacts the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and federal law.

"Judicial restraint" is a legal and judicial philosophy that emphasizes limiting the role of the judiciary, particularly the courts, in the interpretation and application of the law. It suggests that judges should exercise caution and avoid overstepping their authority by deferring to the legislative and executive branches whenever possible. Here are the key principles and characteristics associated with judicial restraint:

1. Limited Role of the Courts: Judicial restraint posits that the judiciary should not be an activist branch of government that actively shapes policy or makes broad, sweeping decisions. Instead, it suggests that the primary role of the courts is to interpret and apply the law as written, without broad policy implications.

2. Respect for Legislative and Executive Branches: Judicial restraint respects the constitutional separation of powers and the principle that elected representatives in the legislative and executive branches are responsible for making and implementing policy decisions. Courts should not substitute their own judgments for those of the elected branches unless there is a clear violation of the law or the Constitution.

3. Precedent and Stare Decisis: Judges practicing judicial restraint often rely on legal precedent and the principle of stare decisis, which means adhering to past decisions. They are hesitant to overturn established legal precedents and believe that continuity and predictability in the law are important.

4. Narrow Interpretation of the Constitution: Judicial restraint typically leads to a narrow interpretation of the Constitution, meaning that judges refrain from reading new rights or expansive meanings into the Constitution, preferring to stick closely to the original text and intent.

5. Strict Constructionism: Judicial restraint is associated with strict constructionism, which involves interpreting statutes and the Constitution according to their plain language and original meaning rather than engaging in a more expansive interpretation.

6. Legislative Solutions: When faced with a legal issue, proponents of judicial restraint often argue that any necessary changes or solutions should be pursued through the legislative process rather than relying on the courts to create new rights or remedies.

7. Avoiding Political or Policy-Making Roles: Judges practicing judicial restraint avoid taking on roles that could be seen as political or policy-making, as they believe it is not the court's function to make or change public policy.

8. Applying the "Political Question" Doctrine: Judicial restraint can lead judges to invoke the "political question" doctrine, which means declining to decide certain cases because the issues involved are primarily political in nature and should be resolved by the elected branches.

It's important to note that judicial restraint is just one approach to constitutional and legal interpretation. The alternative to judicial restraint is often referred to as "judicial activism," which involves a more expansive view of the judiciary's role in shaping and protecting individual rights and addressing legal issues. The appropriate balance between judicial restraint and judicial activism is a subject of ongoing debate in the legal community and society at large.

American Government Chapter 13 Quiz

Question 1

1 / 1 pts

Which of the following is true?

  Judicial decisions can never be revised 

  State law supersedes federal law 

Correct!  Judicial decisions can be revised 

  Judicial decisions are written into the Constitution 

 

Question 2

1 / 1 pts

Which of the following is an opinion written in opposition of the court judgement?

Correct!  Dissenting 

  Majority 

  Exclusionary 

  Concurring 

 

Question 3

1 / 1 pts

What is the system in which law is largely developed through binding judicial decisions?

  Criminal Law 

  Statutory Law 

  Civil Law 

Correct!  Common Law 

 

Question 4

1 / 1 pts

If two or more private individuals have a case pending, where will their case be heard?

  Private court 

Correct!  Civil court 

  Supreme Court 

  Criminal court 

 

Question 5

1 / 1 pts

Which of the following should NOT influence judicial decision-making?

Correct!  Public opinion 

  Signing statements 

  Constitutional law 

  Case law 

 

Question 6

1 / 1 pts

Who exerts significant influence upon judicial appointments?

  Secretary of state 

  Representatives 

Correct!  Senators 

  Governors 

 

Question 7

1 / 1 pts

How are judges selected at the federal level?

  Elected by citizens 

  Application submitted to the court 

  Promotion through the court system 

Correct!  Presidential nomination 

 

Question 8

1 / 1 pts

With whom does the president consult for court vacancies in the lower federal courts?

Correct!  The state’s U.S. Senators 

  The state’s judges 

  The state’s representatives 

  The state’s governor 

 

Question 9

1 / 1 pts

In what case did the court decide that citizens of one state could bring a suit against citizens of another state?

  Marbury v. Madison

  McCulloch v. Maryland

Correct!  Chisholm v. Georgia

  Plessy v. Ferguson

 

Question 10

1 / 1 pts

What is appellate jurisdiction?

  The power of a court to refuse to hear a case 

  The power of a court to appoint new attorneys 

Correct! The power of a court to hear a case on appeal from a lower court and possibly change the lower court’s decision 

  The power of a court to hear a case on appeal from a higher court and possibly change the higher court’s decision 

 

Question 11

1 / 1 pts

What is the Rule of Four?

Correct!  Four of the nine justices must vote to accept a case. 

  Only four justices must be present when a case is brought to the Supreme Court. 

  An attorney must present his case within four days. 

  A case is allowed four appeals to the Supreme Court. 

 

Question 12

1 / 1 pts

Presidents are most likely to appoint which of the following?

Correct!  Justices that share their ideology 

  Justices with opposing ideologies 

  Public defenders 

  Senators 

 

Question 13

1 / 1 pts

Judge appointments last for ______.

Correct!  a lifetime 

  two years 

  five years 

  four years 

 

Question 14

1 / 1 pts

Which of the following is the rule used to determine if a case is granted hearing?

  Rule of Eight 

Correct!  Rule of Four 

  Rule of Three 

  Rule of Five 

 

Question 15

1 / 1 pts

What is the role of the courts?

  To execute laws 

  To create laws 

  To promote laws 

Correct!  To interpret the law 

 

Question 16

1 / 1 pts

According to stare decisis, what information is used by courts to make new decisions?

Correct!  Past decisions and their precedents 

  Personal ideology 

  Public opinion 

  The Constitution 

 

Question 17

1 / 1 pts

Which of the following is true of marijuana policy?

  Most states have decriminalized --but not legalized – marijuana use. 

  It is legal to consume according to the federal government. 

Correct!  Marijuana is illegal under federal law, in which it is classified as a schedule 1 drug. 

  All states have decriminalized it. 

 

Question 18

1 / 1 pts

Most Americans are _________.

  very aware of judicial appointments 

  involved in judicial appointments 

  voters in judicial elections 

Correct!  not aware of judicial appointments 

 

Question 19

1 / 1 pts

Which of the following is NOT one of the basic tiers?

  Trial courts 

Correct!  Attorney courts 

  Appellate courts 

  Supreme courts 

 

Question 20

1 / 1 pts

What was the ruling by the Supreme Court in the case of Marbury v. Madison?

  The executive branch supersedes all other branches. 

  The president should be impeached. 

  The federal courts have authority over the state courts. 

Correct!  An act of Congress was unconstitutional. 

 

Question 21

1 / 1 pts

A court that hears cases for the first time has _________.

  supreme jurisdiction 

  appellate jurisdiction 

  primary jurisdiction 

Correct!  original jurisdiction 

 

Question 22

1 / 1 pts

Who represents the federal government in hearings before the Supreme Court?

  Chief justice 

Correct!  Solicitor general 

  Associate justices 

  Attorney general 

 

Question 23

1 / 1 pts

In what case did the court both restrict its power and significantly expand it the most?

  Hamilton v. Lee

  McCulloch v. Maryland

  Chisholm v. Georgia

Correct!  Marbury v. Madison

 

Question 24

1 / 1 pts

What is judicial restraint?

  A justice refrains from a ruling until a consensus is reached. 

Correct!  A justice is more likely to let stand decisions of other branches of government. 

  A justice is more likely to overrule decisions from other branches of government. 

  A justice refrains from administering the maximum sentence. 

 

Question 25

1 / 1 pts

What is the meaning of the dual court system?

  A case may be assigned to two courts. 

Correct!  There are courts at the national and state level. 

  There are two judges assigned to every case. 

  There are two possible rulings for a case.