New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here


by: Angie Gulgowski


Angie Gulgowski
GPA 3.94

Laura Moyer

Almost Ready


These notes were just uploaded, and will be ready to view shortly.

Purchase these notes here, or revisit this page.

Either way, we'll remind you when they're ready :)

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

Laura Moyer
Class Notes
25 ?




Popular in Course

Popular in Political Science

This 17 page Class Notes was uploaded by Angie Gulgowski on Tuesday October 13, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to POLI 4023 at Louisiana State University taught by Laura Moyer in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 20 views. For similar materials see /class/222766/poli-4023-louisiana-state-university in Political Science at Louisiana State University.

Similar to POLI 4023 at LSU

Popular in Political Science




Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 10/13/15
10509 1 Litigants and Types of Litigation 0 Goal ordinag litigation personal compensatory not aimed at changing a business government policy 7 divorce child custody personal injury criminal law political policy litigation challenging business government policy7 gay marriage7 changing business or government policy7 much more likely to be appealed to a higher court lssue Private lawg dispute individual or organization 7 sue each other7 can be ordinary or political litigation Public lawg dispute government has violated right established in constitution or same gun regulations in Chicago Interest Groups participate in litigations Why lfdon t have success in legislature courts might give you a better chance Trying to set precedent if you get favorable ruling and you could continue to benefit If focus is on compensation7 class action suits Selling a set oflegal arguments may be easier to sell to 1 judge over the majority of the legislatures because the legislatures have to consider the voters If an issue for a minority7 the legislatures are the majority will not vote for the minority because of the voters opinion of them7 where a case might have a better chance 0 Sponsor ofTest Case 7 provide attorney7 more expensive7 have to pay7 if win huge benefits7 have control over legal argument7 Plessy v Ferguson7 looking for sympathetic plaintiff 0 File Amicus Brief7 judge does not have to do anything with these where he has to rule on a case7 can file more because they are less expensive7 not only sets rules ofgarne but how courts should rule on past precedent O Affirmative Action7 University of Michigan7 race got points on undergraduate application 0 Law school used race as a plus factor7 it could or could not help 0 Unconstitutional because ofArticle 14 Legal Profession 0 US is based on case method for training lawyers 0 Law schools in the US have lots of emphasis on learning case learning about precedent and legal roles and how law developed 20th century has diversified with its applicants to law school It has stratified7 Elite Wall Street firms7 large corporations who have in7house lawyers dealing day to day 9 small law firms dealing with individuals flat fee hourly rate Lawyers daily very few get into court7 legal research negotiation counseling drafting documents investigating research Government attorney7 US Attorney7 appointed by President7 confirmed by Senate7 4 year term7 fairly regularly re7 appointed7 designed to different districts7 trying cases on the Federal level Assist Federal Prosecutor7 appointed by US attorney State District Attorney7 horizonml specialist at 1 stage vertical you use a case from start to finish7 more though and consistent Public Defender and Assign council7 deferral and state indigent 9 cannot afford attorney 25 states have public state wide defenders 7500 assigned councili list ofprivate attorney and judge picks off list Evidence shows not much difference between public and private attorney State attorney Generali Smte main legal official for the satei partisan electioni give advisory opinion s about legality of Constitutioni figure head Federal head of Department ofjusticei does not argue in court Federal Solicitor Generali temporary justice 7 represents US in front of Supreme Court seen as very reliable and very skilled litigatori represents US in federal Court 0 Decides which cases the Supreme Court will be asked to take in the federal level Legal Services for the poori civil cases foreclosures on home7 1974 Legal Services Corp grants to agencies who provide legal aid to poori 1 million people a year are turned away Ordinaryi more private Politicali more public Thinking about the goal of the lawsuit and what the lawsuit is about can tell which type of litigation it is Religious groups getting involved in court US India Israeli all modern democracies 0 Lots of different religion and history ofpolitical religious groups US unlike others because not strong multiiparty system India and Israeli interest groups are competing with other parties Get involved in court because size money connectionsi if they have an in house lawyer standing requirements are laxi its pretty easy to get to court in India court fees in India and Israel are low Catholic Church has lots ofmoney wants social justicesi ideology is trying to change government Evangelical faithi publicityi getting the message out more likely to handle with family church rather than courts Having resources and opportunity is not enough you have to know about the beliefs of the organization to know if they will go to court Contingency fee lamersi don t get paid until you do called ambulance chasersi never turn down a case have to know riski there is NO financial incentive to take a losing case the more conmctsi the more selective the less contacts the less selective turn down about 50 of cases brought to them 0 Why 39 Role or attorney is an educator because most people knot know ifa law was broken 39 No negligencei big reason most people get weeded out after the 1St phone call after the 1St meeting is another big weeding out place Female attorneys are more selective than male attorneys Other countries use other methods legal insurance pay insurance and ifgo to court it will be paid for loser pays winners will reduce frivolous claims 7 hurts people in the middle class Dr Wells 60 Min Interview 7500 convicted in test because of faulty eyewitness testimony Eyewitness testimony O Unreliable 0 Very convincing to jury Reinforcement alters memory Categories of Crime Conventionali crimes against property and people murders robbery rape there may be good physical evidence Economici check heisting cheating on taxes violating antiitrust lawsimore expensive crimes to investigate organized syndicatedi mob gangs including drug trafficking prostitution loan sharking uncommon in LA political 7 treason armed rebellion assassinationi government singling out opposition group for prosecution 7 7 difficult to prove consensuali victimless crimes narcotics gambling prostitution Pleaibargainingi no trial or appeali lower sentence pros quicker higher certainty saves money cons not uniformity across crimes innocents might be pressured to accept plea rules of evidence don t apply lawyers can lie about evidence Criminal Trialsi Constitutional rights 4M illegal 53de and seizure mm 0 Exclusionary rulei evidence that is illegally obtained cannot be used against you 0 Good faith exceptioni clerical error or honest mistake by police 5 1369 in imz39nalz39on dueprotem douklejeopamb 6M peeab andfaz39r trial rquexmtatz39on impa z39aljuy iiyromed of Images Waugh loyal 8 we and unusualpum39xbmmt Mil andfz39nex Proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt criminal traili stakes are much higher Federal 12 people unanimous State most serious must have 12 people unanimous juryi but not for minor crimes Voz39r Dz39eri Jury selection process Challenges for cause related to 1 party in case know one party clear conflict of interest Preemptog strike who will be more likely to be more sympathetic with my case to get a more favorable juryi race cannot be used to strike someone O Batson V KY7 race or gender cannot be used to strike someone from a jury Often grounds of appeal Decisionimaking jurors play a passive role in most jurisdictions they cannot take notes judges requirements case info cannot consult anything else Why have a jury ofpeers don t want a judge like jury participant just should be the people and not the government very democratic idea Japani does not use jury in criminal trial when did have jury did not decide guilti they answered fact answers for judge and decisions were not binding cost more and could only have jury if case went in preliminary investigation Anglo American JS Continental Mixed Germany 67 12 people lay people average people and judges ratio Lay peoplei average varies depending on crime Take decision out of smte and into people 0 more SeriOUS crimes 2 1257 people and 3 Ensure fairness by group decision making lUdgeS Problems with conformity to group pressure 0 less serious Crimes 2 1257 People and 1 ludge requirement of 23 ds vote deliberations there is a presiding judge O wan experts in jury 0 problem ifJapan used because of hierarchy 39 lay people would just listen to judge because norm of deferring to higher up wage 7 not random selectioni 2 lay people lay people tend to look like judgesi wealthy smart educated people Do we in the US get a good cross selection ofpeople voter registration drivers license phone books are used opportunity costs missing a day ofworki different economic consequences for different people should it depend who is on triali because peers are different for each defendant Sentencing Why punish people 0 Deterrence recidivism to prevent from doing it again 0 Streets safer O Retributioni an eye for an eye 0 Rehabilitation goal in prison is to have them get back to society Parole Lawsi determining the amount of time served in prison Justice Briori US Federal Sentencing Guidelines came out in 1988 2005 Supreme Court US V Bookeri O 2 criminal defendants challenged sentencing guidelines because judge enhanced jury rule 0 574 decisions made by judge was in violation of 6th amendmenti Guidelines were not set in stone but recommendations but mandatory But advisory Goal of having guidelinesi uniformity people who commit crimes in the same circumstances are sentenced alikei concerns about parole rebuilt public con dence Used empirical data to make guidelines 7 had to make compromise Charge offence system ties I I t to statuei bank robber 10 years 0 Not sensitive to conteXt of crime Real offense system much more sensitive to conteXt of crime 0 Each harm increases sentence 0 Post trial hearing 0 Hearsay exception allowed not protected by Constitution Compromise offense charged is base level and judges can look to aggravating mitigating and characteristics of offender into affect when making a final sentence ust desertsi you are ranking crimes on severity problems because may not have consensus about serious crime Deterrenti punishment to each act should deter the crime againi individual preferencesi can affect this problem Compromise past practices and asked probation officers to analyze past cases Difference between criminal case and civil case Nature of dispute 0 criminal 7 crime against state 0 civili crime against private individuals Burdon ofproof O criminali beyond reasonable doubt O civili preponderance of evidence outcome 0 criminali jail O civili monemryi constitutional rights 0 criminali 4568 O civili neither party ifguaranteed a lawyer Categories of Civil Disputes 10717 medial malpractice personal injury ontmm 39 PWPW inberz39tamei laws of succession mzzb am divorce child custody adoption How does a dispute become a lawsuit 507 Filed in court 1037 Resort to lamersi a lot of things drop offbecause lawyers will not think its worth the time 4497 Disputei discrepancy between people on what is owed 7187 Claimi confronting other person who owes you 10007 Grievancei ideapemomzlb that someone should own something or someone is at fault 1nir Cases filed in court are not representative of all claims that people might make Damages to be awarded Nominal plaintiff was wronged by defendant but very small daInages 3517 more symbolic Compensatogl will cover hard or future harm that occurred because of the instance 0 Car wrecki hospital bill car work time etc 0 Have to list specifically in case 0 Repairing what happened Punitive punish defendant for actions and make an eXaInple to others Liguidated breach of contract enforced when can prove that break occurredi less common Options other than trail settle individually mutual advisor arbitration mitigation private judge 1 shot litigant divorce court is a new place interest groups getting involved can level the playing field against a large company state and federal laws that protect people from discrimination or safety rulesi legislation can also level the playing field Repeat Player Litigant have less at stake because large company may have a different strategy more financial resources can afford to lose a case insurance interest groups unions government Walimart shape lawi more favorable towards them7 precedent playing for the rules of the game can decide when they will settle and when they will go to court 0 when outcome might not be favorable settle because it could set bad precedent or precedent against themselves structure nature of dispute what info is discloses what papers you fill out 7 they have more legal and financial resources Mass Tortsi smoking and gun control Negligencei 4 elements court will look at 17 Interest in case actor took reasonable care not to harm the other parties 27 Conduct were actions taken that would be the same as a reasonably prudent person 37 Causei was actors conduct legal cause of damage a Factuali was action substantial factor in injury but for 47 Actions of Plaintiff what role did plaintiff have in the injury that happened to them Contributory Negligencei ifplaintiff did not exercise case that a reasonable prudent person would and negligence was 1 cause ofinjuryi no lawsuiti all or nothing 0 AL MA NC VA Comparative Negligencei compare complaintv defendants negligence Assumption of Risk if assume risk ofbeing injuredi eX sky diving sign waiver cannot sue Product Liabiligf 3 kinds 17 manufacturing defectsi product is not acting consistent with designi plaintiff has to show that the defect was there when it left the manufacture hard to prove N 7 design defecti manufactured as intended defect is part of design itself a courts use riskiutility analysisi risks v utility of product if alternate design is possible 7 Warning defecti when do you have to put a warning on something Some risks are obvious and responsibility ofmanufacture are not as obvious b0 Challenges to guns with product liability ln Tobaccoi State Attorney General tried to sue tobacco company with individual efforts Tobaccoi Policy Invention in M87 1994 7 changed strategy from individual to state interest in recouping costs of tobacco injury because smtes have to pay for the hospital and medical bills Other state attorney generalsi 41 states did this is 1998 MSAi Multi State Agreement settlement with 46 states 206 billion dollars over 25 years 4 states had already won 40 billion dollars resulting in the tobacco industry raising their prices Can this be used with gun regulation yesiish under idea ofinjury preventioni both targeted by protection and individual personal injury Product liability suites gun not working as intended to work Negligence against retail dealers guns use for illegal purposes Wholesale manufacturers misuse ofgun which could be prevented by safety Manufacturers and Remilersi more restrictive sale and marketing on guns When litigating what are the goals that are trying to get achieved labeling industry as bad7 bad PR7 0 effect more susceptible to strict government regulation legislatures will fight this because they will look bad of they have controversial election if getting contributions from a bad label industry put out of businessi very difficult force to change pricing 0 raise price to reduce use 0 get product to pay costs in the long run7 hospital bills etc McDonalds Hot Coffee Case McDonalds blew her off at first because she was a 1 shot litigant and they are a repeat player McDonalds had previous case with the same issue and they had settled outside court She had never been to court before but her lawyers Morgan had experience with a similar case 0 1 shot litigant is a continuum because she has a lawyer with some eXperience moving her up the continuum more Win7 she won money7 case becomes the movement of tort reform 9 helps McDonalds 0 Public opinion she came out looking bad overall7 McDonalds for publicity7 people still drink McDonalds coffee Injury7 spills coffee in the car of the passenger seat with grandson driving7 when car stops puts between her legs and spills coffee7 3rd degree burns on her legs and lap7 grandson thinks it not a big deal she starts to have shock like symptoms and goes to hospiml7 treated for 3rd degree burns7 Grievance 10000 7 Writes letter to McDonalds to get compensated for medical expenses and asked them to check the coffee maker also asks for compensation for daughter who missed work and if this is not an accident to look at the temperature policy Claim when asked for compensation Dispute 800 McDonalds responds 9 does not change anything but offers 800 Lawyers 900007 she gets a lawyer7 lawyer asks for 90000 0 Attorney field in court a formal complain g arguing product liability When trial date s set7 layers offer 300000 to McDonalds 7 McDonalds rejects 0 Judge assigns to pre7trial mediation7 mediator recommends 225000 7 McDonalds rejects 0 By playing the garne7 McDonalds has dramatically increases the money to be paid Court7 claim has 4 elements 0 17 accident was common but injury was atypical because how dangerously hot coffee was 0 27 customers are not aware of how hot the coffee is and other restaurants don t serve coffee this hot 0 37 McDonalds knows that their customers are not aware of how hot the coffee is7 700 claims about hot coffee 0 47 reckless indifferent 7 McDonalds did nothing to change policy and did not do a good job ofwarning customers 0 Her lawyers don t argue negligence because she admits the she caused the spill 0 McDonalds s lawyers says 39 Personal responsibility for actions 39 She is used as an eXaInple of someone who is litigious too willing to jump into court 39 Marketing says people like their coffee hot and cups and lids are fine 39 argument that she did not take her clothes off quick enough 39 also because of her age she got more burn then someone who is younger 0 Jurors7 award both punitive 27 million and compensatory 160000 damages Judge7 reduces punitive from 27 mil to 480000 3X compensatory Media plays a huge role on personal responsibility 0 Its missing the legal facts of the case 0 Media makes it sensational7 like spilling coffee is like winning the lotto 0 Coverage stops at jury because made so much attention to 3 million and they didn t want to correct themselves 0 There is not a lot of follow up in the case 0 There is also no info on the settlement because it is confidential Collegial Courts7 more than 1 judge sitting appellate courts7 courts oflast resort US Supreme Court 77Cue Theogp unit of analysis is the case7 looking at the cases and not the judges 7 looks at cases not judges7 which cases the court will take and identify trends 4 things that are most likely to get on Supreme Court docket 17 US Government asking for review 27 civil rights or civil liberties issue 37 judges below are not unanimous 47 ideological direction oflower court decisions Trends in the Supreme Court Docket Warreni economic cases in conservative way get brought up and overturnedi want to send court in liberal decision and setting liberal precedents Burgeri more likely to review liberal court decisions and reverse Rehnquisti take conservative court decisions and affirm them WiSmall Group Analysisi thinks about how people work in groups group dynamics important factors 0 persuasion bargaining threat of sanction and threat to go public Role of ChiefJustice in Supreme Court selected by President Statesi elected by peers Opinion Writing gets to decide who writes opinioni ifin minority neXt in seniority gets to write 0 May be able to pull a few votes over if the majority is written in a more moderate way iiiAttitudeg Attitudinal Modeli focus on ideology or political preferences related to models about judges by background information attitudes are important in decisions decide cases on policy liberal conservative 0 not law or case itself judges attitudes predict outcome How do you know attitudes 0 Prior decisionsi past votes this is a circular process 0 Who appointed them7 there are exceptions 0 They are all indirect measurementsi about 80 prediction 0 Newspaper coverage of nominee 0 Probably works best at Supreme Court level 39 Because they have a tremendous amount if discretion Judges make rational choices to implement policy goals based on attitudes iiiRational Choice Theory Stratch Modelsi judges goals attitudes are too narrow to predict we should think about judges goals to get policy into law judges are going to undersmnd constraints with Congress Judges will negotiate to a more middle ground Uimere Voting 7 Republican voting Republican Xtmtegz39t Voting vote that is counter to their party role of other actors role ofinstitution has effected Economic idea ofmaXimizing utility Judges care about policy goals but cannot always vote the way they want because restrictions and regulations Comes out of economics US Supreme Court Strategic Behavior Video strategic modeli voting depends on other factors other than policy 0 who is on the court with you other judges 0 other political actors Congress and President Smges of Decision making 0 17 Grant Certiorari Rule of 47 4 judges have to agree to grant cert 39 Poole send law clerks and read petitions and get cases which they think Justices should read 39 Discuss List 27 Briefs and Oral Arguments preference might already have been set 0 37 conference 0 47 opinion assignment 0 57 opinion circulation compromise might be reached 0 67 final opinion Craig V Boren OK State 0 What standard of review should the court use to evaluate sexibased classifications DUI law that differentiates between men 21 and women 18 Craig Whiteneri strict scrutiny should apply just like race Oklahomai thought rational basis was ok to use ACLUi in between strict scrutiny and rational basis Once opinion is assigned Justices can 0 Join majority and not write 0 Write concurrence or join concurrence 0 Write or join special concurrencei agree with outcome but not reason 0 Write join dissent Powell Blackman Burgeri shift votes from conference to final vote 0 Burger and Rehnquisti dissent Justice are not voting sincerelyi they are voting strategically Intermediate scrutiny should be applied for seX With strategic behaviori more information is needed Function ofwriting a separate opinion Individual British Courti opinion about individual beliefs and opinions Institutionali looks at President and Colleaguesi Civil law systemi France and Germany 1 answer don t air disagreement dissent Hybridi USi both factors ofindividual and institutional Reasons dissent rate is lower for US Courts oprpeals vs US Supreme Court 3 judges in the US Court oprpeal v 9 in the US Supreme Court Supreme Court is dealing with the tough constitutional questions Less room for disagreement in the Courts oprpeals because of the docket and error correction Lower court is bound more tightly by precedent than US Supreme Court 0 Precedent set in Circuit 0 Precedent set in Supreme Court Number of cases heard by US Courts of Appeal 7 it more time to write a dissent and they have very little eXtra time lfgoing to dissent way to dissent have to play nice not good for public opinion to air dirty laundry should disagree but not be disagreeable have to work with judges morei making it harder on decision next time around Canadian Supreme Court V South Africa Appellate Court places are so different but there are similarities both colonized by British head Justice gets to appoint other justices both use panelsi using subset not like US7 en banc Canada 5 or 7 7 as many as 9 39 S Africa 3 or 57 depending on criminal case 3 or civil case 5 Both countries have tenure and have legitimacy and respect of other branches Authors are relying on Attitude Theory 4 hypothesis ofwho will be appointed by ChiefJustice to sit on panel 17 ChiefJustice will pick other judges that are ideologically close them themselves making similar decisions 39 Results doesn t really matter 27 ln salient big controversial civil rights or liberties cases7 picking people based off ideologically is very important 39 Results there is a relationship for thisi this is correct 37Junior people more likely to be put on panel because of case load 39 Results supported for Canada because of the case load but there is not such a large case load for S Africa so it is not supported in S Africa 47 Freshman are less likely to be put on panel 39 Results supportedi found to be true ChiefJustice does take into account how new you are to the Court ChiefJustices are not picking randomly Terms and Vocabulary People in the lawsuit plaintiff bringing the complaint and the defendant Appellate appellant and the appellee respondent won the case Petitioner person appealing to the Supreme Court Amiaus Curiae friend of the court groups who have a stake in the outcome of the case Majority opinion sets precedent 0 Supreme Court 59 Plurality does not set precedent Concurring agree with outcome of case but not the reasoning Dissenting disagree with outcome not voting with majority Normative claim about rightwrong proscriptive should ou t Empirical concerned with is objective does What characteristics must a law exhibit How do you know a law when you see it threat of a consequence details notice protection person property rights availability for people to know backing of legitimate authority agreed upon social norm boundaries order structure recorded resolve con icts uniformity structure relationships necessary uniformity consistency 9 authority Who contributes to law in society Law 0 Statutory law passed by legislatures o Constitutional Law broader more vague 0 Administrative Law agency decisions 0 Common Law associated with courts interpreting Admin Statutory Constitutional law Common Law System US Civil Law System 0 Countries that were formally British colonies 0 Roman origin France Germany 0 precedent is binding 0 precedent is not binding 0 judges have discretion 0 judges are seen as technical bureaucrats very o Often end up with interbranch con icts detailed code judges interpret code which because of judges discretion the legislatures made 0 judges look at disputes and refer to code for answers Difference is the View of the judge for Common and Civil Law Systems Criminal Law Suits Civil Law Suits government v individual person v person business stakes are higher prison time medical malpractice family law contracts higher burden of proof etc person is guilty beyond reasonable doubt damages are at stake money more certain than not 95 only preponderance of evidence 51 Judges v Umpires Activity in Class Keep legality of courts strong so people abide by laws outcomes Judici a1 philosophies Schools of Jurisprudence Natural Law higher authority procedures matter broad sense of justice inherent justice morality Catholic Church o Critiques could be variation over people source of justice could be different 7 over time good just changes Legal Positivism Positive law rules and regulations made by executives judges etc law became a law through correct procedures then you have to follow it o Critiques law could be unjust immoral overly technical not looking at common good of people When you see a law is immoral If positivist you have to follow it you try to change the law through the system If naturalist have the duty to disobey Historical Jurisprudence original intent looking back to history to tell you what the law says using history culture customs look to see what history has set as rules guidelines look to writings of the framers to see that the writers were thinking 0 Critiques norms change over time evolving norms gaps in historical record Utilitarianism economic idea get most bene t for the most people people are rational actors greatest good for greatest number of people 0 Critiques ignores well bring of minorities promotes tyranny of majority 7 puts emphasis on rational of people does not look at factors like justice Mechanical Jurisprudence judges are mechanical in applying the law judges as umpiresjudges are mechanical in reading and applying law 0 Critiques don t take into account competing interests public opinion etc Sociological Jurisprudence social customs precedent norms trends judges should be active in making policy courts should make policy because reacting to law in daily life 0 Critiques law can change in a slow way personal preferences come into play bias is inevitable 0 Legal Realism branch of sociological jurisprudence social customs precedent norms trends personal preference come into play law as a social science I Critiques no room for law it says judges should think of policy and personal belief 7 too much personal preference and not enough law Critical Legal Studies law is very subjective 7 neo Marxist looking at interpreting people using class feminist jurisprudence critical race theory see law as upholding status quo of wealthy over working class men over women whites over blacks o Critigues believe law is subjective don t believe in law aw all Law and Economics individuals are rational actors use free marker principles to interpret law 0 Critiques capitalist ideas over individuals con icts with Constitution Supreme Court has most choice over their docket Origins of Judicial Power Federal 78 downplays power of court least dangerous branch response to concerns about federal power Purse Congress not sword Executive Branch Judicial Courts Supreme Court may have power of judicial review Supreme Court not superior to other courts Constitution has to win Supreme Court act as police to make sure laws written are in with the Constitution Constitution Article 111 after the Legislatures then Executive Branch It is the shortest and last court has appellate jurisdiction and leave open to Congress other courts as well as how many justices lacking detail 1796 Hylton V US can US pass carriage taX uses judicial review to uphold carriage taX 1803 M arbury VMadison 1 job of court to interpret constitution 2 act passed by Congress judicial act found to be unconstitutional because expands courts original jurisdiction 7 when law and Constitution con icts Constitution wins Case that 39 quot 39 J judicial review to check other branch Contracts lay out obligationswe give up some rights so government can protect up If government goes too far we can overthrow and replace with government of the people Constitution is a social contract Supreme Court acts as police and interprets the Constitution and looks at balance of power to see if it has been interrupted Federal System Districts Courts 94 act as trial courts Oury trial heard by singly judge or judge and jury Oury trial discretion is low and case load is high 7 lots of emphasis to settle out of court not all decisions are published Appellate Courts 13 US Courts of Appeals discretion is low we have a right to appeal 7 judge sit in panels 3 judges no jury organized regionally into circuits LA 5Lh Circuit panels are picked at random rotation error correction cases are often not published looking over with trial courts did and correcting error 0 If lose at Courts of Appeals can ask entire circuit to hear case en banc 7 majority of judges have to agree before en bane Supreme Court 1 most control over docket no one is guaranteed a Supreme Court trail rule of 4 writ of certiorari bringing the record up substantial deferral question for Supreme Court to get involved resolving con icts All courts can do Constitutional cases Judicial Independence for Supreme Court Judges What values is implicit in judicial independence not running for office not concerned with honest not corrupt appealing to the public consistent and clear no accountability insulation from outside groups neutrality Legislatures are suppose to be about accountability MICRO Level Judges independence corruption could threaten partisan in uence selection process dictatorships new democracies paying a cop off MACRO Level Total System legitimacy of court as an institution 7 if you don t view the court as legitimate and an opinion comes down that you don t like it you disobey judicial selection remove political pressure judicial review courts could use when states are outliers will take into account which groups are in power Bush V Gore people through courts decision was political 5 to 4 5 conservative equal protection 4 liberal states rights Grant institution independence insulating political preferences of that court Court will re ect groups that are in power When will court check other branches if other branches nominate select them 0 When from previous Congress or Political party Courts are aware of other groups Congress Executive Branch Elected bodies are happy to let court take the case 0 Passing the buck not allowing legislatures to get involved 0 Safe with republican bodies in Congress because court was more Republican Inept to know which group is in majority who is on court which Congress passed the law 0 Pull examples and see the Con guration of Congress and the Republican and Democratic states at the time it was passed Judicial independence 9 increased power 9 participation in contentious disputes 9 greater scrutiny from other branches 9 questions appropriate role of judiciary If court is seen as too independent it can undermine itself because the other branches will tame them down Judicial Quali cations Background Demographics and Selection Louisiana Parisian elections for Judges State Supreme Court Judges 30 have experience as prosecutors 75 have had some judicial experience Extremely af uent people wealthy well connected Lower Court Judges trial court family court etc might not have had judicial experience more heterogeneous Demographics 30 women 70 men Chief Justices 19 are women 36 of all chief justices Courts that have more seats have more females Courts have are lower in status have more women than prestigious courts 90 state supreme courts justices are white 1981 99 white and 97 male Less women because less opportunity after law school this is changing slowly Selection Appointment 0 Govemor may make political selections fro hisher political agenda 0 Legislative agreement with people writing laws and applying laws electoral connection 0 Judicial Independence Merit o Idea is to remove politics 0 1 commission formed to generate names governor picks 1 person lst person is judge for x amount of time o 2 retention voting to keep or remove governor picked judge for longer time I Critiques pushed politics to back room voters don t know what s going on important to know who is on commission Election 0 Non partisan do not know republican democrat I Interest group participation brings this closer to partisan I Voters are not qued on ballot o Partisan should be able to vote and know if party of candidate 7 accountability Some states may use the governor elected method in actuality when on paper when they are Partisan Incumbency already in office Rights Potential Rights of Candidate competitive race speech represent yourself and political issues due process right of association who you affiliate yourself with Rights of Voters information disclosure to make decisions 0 candidate information 0 who has given money to the candidate Goal of Competitive Elections check on government because you can hold people accountable for their actions Why have announce clause or restrictions on what judicial candidates can say impartiality keep corruption out of system appearance of impartiality 0 can make decisions seem less legitimate Republican Party v White Supreme Court said that the announce clause violated candidates free speech rights Announce Clause 0 First Amendment I Is the government regulation content based cannot favor 1 content over the other 0 Announce says that you cannot talk about judicial philosophies as if would imply to a case 0 The clause tells you what topics you can cover regulation is content based I Court applies strict scrutiny more likely than not a law will get struck down when looked at strict scrutiny because the burden is reversed o Narrowly tailored means used to achieve interest is only way to achieve compelling interest 0 Compelling interest there has to be an amazing reason to regulate the content 0 MN wants to maintain impartiality and appearance of impartiality Supreme Court impartiality lack of bias does not serve impartiality in that way MN lack of preconception legal views openmindness Supreme Court rejects hard to find judge who does not have a precondition about law says that MN is being under inclusive codes do not regulate statements before becoming a candidate or after elected o Concurring Kennedy this clause takes aways peoples information 000 Know myths and evidence against myths Moodle Handout What does it mean to elect judges Dissent 0 Louisiana Melinda HallO interviews with state justices in LA I Justices are less likely to dissent as they get closer to election even capitol punishment cases I It draws attention to yourself because you are writing by yourself I Electing judges changes the dynamics justices ideas about the court Sentencing o Punitive punishment closeness to reelection o Closer to reelection9 harshness of sentences increased I Judges are concerned with being labeled soft on crime there are consequences of this because people don t want to reelect someone who is soft on crime I Public is not sophisticated people cannot tell if a decision is appropriate not appropriate I Damages idea of judicial neutrality I People will not be treated equality because if varies with timing closer to election harsher penalties Campaign Contributions Louisiana 7 district based


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"

Amaris Trozzo George Washington University

"I made $350 in just two days after posting my first study guide."

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.