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

Supreme Court and Public Policy

by: Miss Birdie Zemlak

Supreme Court and Public Policy PS 308

Marketplace > North Carolina State University > Political Science > PS 308 > Supreme Court and Public Policy
Miss Birdie Zemlak
GPA 3.55

Elisha Savchak

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

Elisha Savchak
Class Notes
25 ?




Popular in Course

Popular in Political Science

This 20 page Class Notes was uploaded by Miss Birdie Zemlak on Thursday October 15, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to PS 308 at North Carolina State University taught by Elisha Savchak in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 27 views. For similar materials see /class/223781/ps-308-north-carolina-state-university in Political Science at North Carolina State University.

Similar to PS 308 at NCS

Popular in Political Science


Reviews for Supreme Court and Public Policy


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: 10/15/15
Supreme Court our 2nd appellate court Court of appeals First appellate court Intermediate appellate because it comes between lower courts and the court of last resort Superior court criminal felonies trials family issues above 10000 District court traffic small under 10000 quottrial courtsquot Nation US Supreme Court Court of Appeals 13 circuit courts We are the 4 h circuit stationed in VA District trial courts Definition of law Law is a social norm the infraction of which is sanctioned in threat or in fact by the application of physical force by a party possessing the socially recognized privilege of so acting 3 important parts Force if you break a law there is a punishment or reward Authority enforcing law ie law enforcement officers and judges Regularity norms are regular ways of behaving Consistency stability Sources of law Constitution deal with government structure and power 0 Article 1 Congress 0 Article 2 Presidency 0 Article 3 Judiciary 0 Article 6 Supremacy Clause constitution is the highest law of the land Any law has to comply with the constitution because of Article 6 Statute legislative laws Any law made by legislators Ex Tax laws criminal laws minimum wage Executive orders 39 quot 39 39 b r or governors Way to act unilaterly Truman 9981 integrate African Americans into military Eisenhower 3804 integrate schools Brown v Board 1954 Administrative Boards Established by statutes Quasifunction NRLB EPA law regulations Court Decisions judgemade lawcommon law Hard to read Precedent stare decisis Types of law Criminal offenses against the state 3 levels Felonies at least a year in prison andor death Misdemeanors Less sesrious less than a year in jail Infractions smallest Traffic tickets fines M disputes between individuals andor corporations Public Law Sovereign entity relationships between people and their government Criminal tax general Statutory Law 39 quot 39 39 by 39 g39 39 statutes Common Law easier to change Judge made law 37 panel appellate judges to change State law whole body of law in the state Federal law all executive orders by president statutes regulations judge rulings Similarities across courts 1 Individual disputes 2 Major players judges attorneys Differences across courts 1 Trial courts vs appellate courts original jurisdiction vs appellate jurisdiction reviews lower decisions 2 Who presides over a case 0 Appellate courts collegiate courts work in group of at least 3 0 En banc all justices sit together 3 Workload trial 250 cases per day Supreme Court 80 cases a year 4 Staffing federal exclusive state local 5 Atmosphere trials are chaotic appellate are more formal 6 Different kinds of cases tickets vs roe v wade 1973 Articles of Confederation Strong state governments Continental Congress No judicial separate system 1787 Constitutional Convention legislative executive judiciary Federalist In support of large federal government Pro new government Virginia Plan One supreme court and inferior courts AntiFederalist States rights Against new government New Jersey Plan One supreme court The end Article 3 The two sides compromise One supreme court With lower courts but congress will decide on them later Federalist Congress 1789 created judiciary lower courts Judiciary act of 1789 Adds courts of appeals 3 and one district court per state 1 jusdge 6 justices on Supreme Court Early days of Supreme Court Washington first president to staff entire Supreme Court 1 Political allies federalist only Like minded Legacy they will be there for life Political favors 2 Geography Communication Allay fears people may have had about the new Supreme Court Appointed 3 northerners and 3 southerners so that people would think it was quottheirquot Supreme Court relatable trust localized Royal Exchange 1790 NY First meeting February 2nd 1790 Not all showed up because of transportation Low prestige Chief 39ustice John Marshall llMarshall was the courtquot Wonderful personality 18011835 Consensus Whatever he thought people went along with 1 He eliminated seriatim opinion writing 2 Established judicial review the authority of the court to strike down a caselaw as unconstitutional 1 Eliminated seriatim opinion writing practice of every justice writing a separate review per case Replaced it with majority opinion and dissenting Majority opinion unites court United front Plessy V Ferguson 1896 18 h black homer plessy Separate but equal Brown V Board 1954 Linda brown Integrate schools The supreme court has discretionary 39urisdiction the ability to pick and choose which cases to hear Acquire this power from the Judiciary Act of 1925 before the supreme court had to hear every case brought to them Now they can hear as few as 30 a year This allows them to 1 Get control of their case load 2 Get to choose which legal issues to hear Appellant petitioner Loser in lower court Appellee respondent Winner in lower court Petition for a writ of certiorari asks for supreme to hear your case 9000 a year Then supreme court issues a writ that is an order to the lower court to send up everything from your case 2 ways the supreme court is different from the Presidency and Congress Not a self starter Hast to wait until issues come to their table in the form of a case No purse no sword Gideon v Wainright court had to hope states would go along with it Cannot make states follow Brown v Board Supreme Court beginning meetings New York royal exchange First meeting Phillie court house small building DC capitol building old senate chamber DC 1935 supreme court building was built This building gave them more political power Legitimacy Collegiality getting to know one another Coequal branch of government William howard taft president and chief justice Generated the idea for the court house Saw it all the way through Term begins first Monday in October Red mass Sunday before Tentative vote in conference Majority opinion is assigned by the most senior justice in the majority is the law of the land Presidential values Dissenting opinion another view Multiple possible Not agreeing Concurring opinion agrees with majority outcome but for a different legal reason Lawrence v texas antisodomy for same sexes O Connor concurred but for equal protection rights 14 h amendment Majority due process Court of appeals 2 primary functions 1 Simple error corrections 6080 2 Develop cases to be heard by supreme court 2040 Court of appeals 60000 cases last stop for most Lots of policymaking power Cheryl Hopwood v Texas 1996 U of texas law school Special preferences to minorities Circuit court of appeals provide laws to only states in their courts Law clerks sort cases into easy and difficult 1 Easy 6070 sent to staff attorneys for preliminary rulings Summary judgment cases 2 Difficult attorneys are invited to orally argue Full opinions written Full consideration cases Each state has between 1 and 4 district courts Judicial act of 1789 established federal district courts People actually wanted to serve on these unlike the first Supreme Court Federal district gt Supreme Court Serve 2 offices at the same time Stay in your town instead of having to travel Local problems with your neighbors Marbury v Madison 1803 Established judicial review court striking down a legislative or executing action as unconstitutional Court claimed this power for their selves it was not given by congress or the constitution Begins in 1801 because of the 1800 election presidential Jefferson and Adams ran against each other Jefferson was an antifederalist Jeffersonian republicans Majoritarians majority should decide what the government does really liked democracy Hated the Supreme Court because they were appointed and not elected John Marshall federalist Secretary of state for Adams Madison was the new secretary of state for Jefferson Antifederalist Inauguration was in march and not January Adams and Marshall during lame duck Organic Act amp Circuit Court Act Midnight judges acts Created new justices in SC Appointed Marbury William Federalist Jefferson and Madison threw out left over commissions Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 The reason Marbury takes the case to the supreme court Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over writs of mandamus to make public officials perform their duties 1 It s Marshalls jobhe should recuse himself 2 Jefferson hates the supreme court 3 Political battle antifedfed 4 No enforcement powers The supreme court didn t meet in 1802 because congress didn t want them to decide on this case Marshall answers 3 fundemental questions in the case 1 Commission means nothing It s just paperformality 2 Section 13 is unconstitutional Original jurisdiction cannot be changed by congress because there is no clause in the constitution Judiciary act cannot expand the constitution 3 Supreme Court interprets the constitution because of this they can strike down congress Judicial review is not used for another 54 years Federalist No 78 Hamliton Judicial review Talks about courts and legislators Courts use ofjudicial review says it s a good thing This is why 1 Court is not a self starter They have to wait for people to have an issue before they can deal with it Not going to be using it all the time 2 Courts are the least dangerous branch because they lack the power of the purse and the sword 3 Constitutional amendment provision Jefferson Federalist papers propaganda to get people to support the constitution John jay Hamilton and Madison writers Publius written name Legislature Hamilton addresses why congress should not practice judicial review Congress is elected accountable to people not constitution 2 They make the law Gonzales v ca rhart 2007 abortion Partial birth abortion ban Nebraska Then 54 conservative vote upheld ban Ginsburg composition of the court effects decisions so does personality Vacancies 1 Death medical innovations we live longer No pensions until 1869 2 Voluntary departures no prestige little influence Circuit ridingstravel Money Retirements Familypersonal reasons Old age 3 External pressures 1869 congress pension Rule of 80 20 left the court If you re 65 and have worked in the federal courts for 15 years or 70 and works for 10 you can leave with pension Presidential pressures Johnson coaxed Arthur goldburg to leave the court to become a UN ambassador so he could make room for his friend Abe Fortas Presidents party stevens left because he was a liberal and knew since there was a democratic president he would be prelaced with a likeminded individual Impeachment Samuel chase onlyjustice to be impeached Never convicted Involved in adams campaign Gave bad definition of treason Formal process of selection Article 2 section 2 judicial confirmation President nominates senate advises and consents 1 Ordinary associate justice leaves 2 Chiefjustice leaves Outsider to replace chiefjustice normal Elevate associate justice and then appoint associate justice 2 nominations Senate judiciary committee 18 senators Receives information and looks into nominee Partisan research each side conductions their own investigation 8 republicans10 democrats Looking for formal clubsorganizations sends signal of beliefs Looks at previous rulings Consults collegues behaviors team member Looks at moneyfinancial issues Criminal recordfull FBI background check Holds hearings began in mid 1950 s Purposes of the hearings 1 Personalityideology 2 To clear up any issues 3 To educate the public 4 Performance under pressure After the heart they vote on how they feel about the nominee recommendation to the full senate Confirmrejectno recommendation Then senate votes they only need the simple majority gt 50 Real politics of selection Legal community and other interest groups ABA 1950 s breaked the standing committee on federal judiciary Eisenhower 19531961 asked them to help him pick nominees Bush w nogo Obama yes Liberal organization They evaluate for fitness qu wq q nq Interest groups Lobby the president Lobby the senate gate keeping powers SJC make recommendations and can delay nominations Go public inform them about nominees and the way they vote Sent out mailing Ask public to send letters to senators TV commercials 1 They ve only been around since the 1970 s or 1980 s 2 Courts are policymakers They re an avenue forof change Only 3 chiefjustices have ever been elevated 1910 white taft 1941 stone FDR 1986 Rehnquist Reagan Robert Bork not confirmed 19877 by Reagan Was attorney general solicitor general Conservative Wrote many books about his views Believed in poll taxes and no right to privacy 14 h amendment only applied to race and not gender or sexuality People for the American way ad against him Clarence Thomas Conservative Dc circuit court judge for one year Head of EEOC equal employment Loves his grandfather Untraditional upbringing Went to Harvard President thinking process 0 Objective qualifications JD legal training high ethical standards Maybe law professors and or formal judges Johnson abe fortas 1965 Eleation 1969 S issues Public speaking for 15k Would get together to talk about policy separation of power Resigned Political debt 0 Policy preferences an individuals attitude toward policy issues 1 Priorjudicial experience Short paper trailfew years 2 Ask them personally 3 Partisanship largest indicator of policy views Eisenhower nominated warren I and brennan I fail 0 Political rewards debt Johnson and fortas Hugo black ke Warren 0 Political benefits Geography Racethhnicity Gendersex Religion Louis brandeis jewish In order to be appointed to the supreme court 1 Have a JD form a prestigious school 2 Become a law clerk hopefully at supreme court Connections experience 3 High federal government position 4 Private practice appellate 5 Organizational activitypolitical activity 6 Law professor 7 Served on a court ofappeals Priorjudicial experience Team member Made decisions Justices Year President Party Circuit School Religion Roberts 2005 Bush W R DC Harvard Catholic Scalia 1986 Reagan R DC Harvard Catholic Kennedy 1988 Reagan R 9TH Harvard African Thomas 1991 Bush H R DC Yale Catholic Ginsburg 1993 Clinton D DC Harvard Jewish Breyer 1994 Clinton D 15T Harvard Jewish Alito 2006 Bush W R 3RD Yale Catholic Sotomayo 2009 Obama D 2ND Yale Latina After Midterm Petition for writs of certiorari 2004 7496 2005 8521 2006 8857 2007 8241 2008 7738 2009 8159 Who petition Interest groups government criminals individuals organizations unions corporations schools churches Ordinary aspect of litigation personal stake large sum of moneylife in prison They just want to win Political aspect policy issues that are introduced by the case Attorneys Gideon s trumpet One shot presents only once No idea Repeat players know what to do confident comfortable Gideon BampE in barpool hall Stole change Pro se represented himself Informa Paupuris informal petition for cert Abe Fortas repeat player US Solicitor General represent executive branch in the Supreme Court V2 involve federal government Most experience with justices 56 Neal Katyal acting when Kagan left Nominated Don Verrilli for real 56 1 Oral arguments 2 Choosing cases to petition restraint 0 Earn respect 0 Want to t in Good relationship Very important between 6 and justices Second Stage Pauper s case Criminals Informa pauperis 2008 6142 cases from people in jail 2009 6576 Paid cases Pay 300 or amount to get case to court Most that SC hear 2008 1596 2009 1583 1 Prisoners just sit there so they appeal 2 Don t know how to craft good argument Cert pool 1972 everyone participates except Alito Choose whether to be a part of not 16 law clerks review cases Petitions for review Pool memo summary of each petition Offers suggestions to justices Chiefjustice makes Discuss list thinks might be worthy legal questions Dead list not going to be talked about Rule of four takes 4 justices to review case Created by justices themselves Deciding to decide HW Perry 1990 CertWorthiness 1 Follow technical criteria Format filing fee SC rules Rule 33 2 Justiciability requirements Judicially created Restraints 1 Prohibition on advisory opinions Legislative ask SC for advice 11 states do allow NC does 2 Standing who can bring the case to court The harmed 3 Ripeness premature Poe v Ullman 1961 4 Mootness repeatability exception Has case been resolved Defunis v Odegaurd 1973 5 Political Questions won t hear Foreign affairs 6 Conflict between certs Rule 10 Different courts deciding same issures in different ways Uniformity 80 of cases are conflict of courts Overwhelming factors Rule 10 important issues Warren court expanded rights of accused Abortion Bush v gore Policy preferences Reverse lower court 23 cases decided Affirmative grant of certiorari Justice will grant if he thinks outcome will be favorable to him Defensive denial denying because justice is in minority Petitioner identity depends on who is bringing the case andor lawyer trying it Solicitor General yes hear the case Repeat player yes One shot maybe not Paupers Growth in case load 1960 1970 work doubled 12K 19872007 doubles again 48k ls jump civil rights era Interest groups began growing Warren courts 1954 2quotd jump more people in prison Reagan s war on drugs Rehnquist filing fee dropped Technical requirements dropped How do they manage new load Law clerks Horas gray 18881919 funding Cert pool Judicial act of 1935 discretionary jurisdiction CJ Rehnquist only 8090 cases per year Oral arguments timed 1849 2 hrs per side 1925 1 hr per side 1970 30 min per side Creation of dead and discuss list Majority opinions make law Dicta unimportant parts to opinions Reading court cases Background Legal question Dicta Legal reasoning or ratio decidendi Outcome who wins Theories ofjudicial reasoning The legal theory justices make their decisions based off legal reasoning Case facts precedent legal factors language of the law Normative theory how people view our courts Sees justices as constrained actors Kazinski 9 h Circuit 1 Doctrine oforiginal intent Interpreting based on what the founders intended Differential interpretation of someone else Really old cases Federalist papers History of founders Constitutional convention paupers Legislativearchival documents Talk to them if they re around Speeches and public interviews Case marsh v Chambers 1983 Chambers NE legislators Doesn t like that prayer is at beginning of session Chaplain paid for by government 1965 319month Establishment clause SC says it s okay Original intent example Founder used chaplain Pros 1 Keeps law free from personal politics 2 Uniformity in law Cons 1 Sources are unclear andor vague 2 There s always more than a single intent 2 Plain meaningLiteralism Using the fairly understood meaning of the word Hugo black stanch literalist Cohen v CA Pros Simplicity Cons several meanings ofa word Sullican stroop 1990 child support black s law Websters 3 Stare decisis following precedent Differential Pros keeps law stable and predictable Increased legitimacyprestige for SC Cons always precedent on both sides of a case Morse v Frederick 2007 bong hits for jesus Amicus briefs friend of the court Paying fees Providing emotional support 89 thousand petitions for cert Alito does not spend time in cert pool Case facts Precedent Language of law Constrained actors Attitudinal theory policy preferences Realistic views An individual s attitudes towards policy issues Justices have freedom on court so they use their preferences 1 Unelectedlife terms No constituency 2 Court of law resort entire country No appeal 3 Discretionaryjurisdiction 1925 judicial act Policy issues 4 Last job Economics Cupperdog Lunderdog Civil liberties Cstate Lindividual Criminal rights warren court Individual L stateC L Stevens ginsburg souter breyer Kennedy Alito robers Scalia Thomas Votic Blocs patterns of agreements Pros of attitudinal theory 1 Very realistic Intuitive 2 Easy to understand court differences 54 72 3 Judicial selection Cons 1 Pessimistic Not normatively appealing People do not want it to work this way 2 Unanimous decisions Doesn t explain 40 3 What if a justice changes his mind Strategic modeltheory policy preferences Face constraints 2 types 1 Colleagues endogenous Within SC Trying to predict the policy preferences of colleagues 2 Congress president and public exogenous 1 Justices make individual decisions based on preferences of colleagues 8 justices Prospective Opinion writing Pros 1 Work in group Realistic view 2 Notes in conference 3 Vote changes 315 drafts 4 Endogenous Cons 1 Contact 2 Waking opinion 3 Normative perspective Should they be influencing others Exogenous public and congress How to figure out how the public feels Focus groups phone calls polls Interest groups give the SC amicus briefs explaining how a segment of the population feels Amicus briefs State legislation News media Talk to family and friends Talk to law clerks Election results llhot topics where the SC wants to know the publics opinion Drug testing public school children internment camps pledge of allegiance Moot FDR 1932 economic programs Who influences who Public 69 Supreme Court Evidence Public 9 Supreme Court Political adjustment when a political institution adjusts its views to match publics Takes 35 years 1 Basic judicial process Litigation pipeline 2 Become convinced public opinion has changed 3 Lag period Why follow public opinion 1 No enforcement mechanism Earn legitimacy 2 Public opinion legitimate guide Pros 1 Institutional sense to rely on public 2 Nice though We want decisions to reflect us Cons 1 Mixed results Robert Dahl Dahl s hypothesis Composition changes Legal Theory 1 Opinions read like law Iquot Justices are trained in law 3 Respect level of court Congress powers over courts 1 Confirmation Statutory override Biggest threat Constitutional amendment 5 times as results of SC Impeach justices Jurisdiction stripping of their appealate jurisdiction Did so with abortion Sunshine in the courts bill Orren hatch Number of justices FDR judicial reorganization act of 1937 llcourt packing plan 4 horsemen of the apocalypse Justices died or left 9 Equot gtS quot L SC House senate C SC will go towards house Median Avoid statutory overrides L H SC Senate C SC will stay the same Perfect Litigan1s Ordinary litigation something personal at state Political litigation policy issues introduced Attorneys Difference between one shot and repeat attorneys Interest groups They 1 Help support litigation 2 Submit amicus briefs 3 Test cases US solicitor general 1 represents executive branch in supreme court 2 V2 cases involve federal court 3 most lrepetitive player Things they do 1 Make oral arguments 2 Choose what cases to petition 3 Wants to earn respect from justices 4 Has highest approval for cert rate about 6978 Paupers Cases 1 Usually prisoners 2 Also called informapauperis 3 Mare paupers apply for cert than paid Paid Case 1 Certain formatting 2 Pay file fee 3 More approved for cert than paupers Cert Pool 1 Created 1972 2 Alito chooses not to participate 3 4 Reviewed by two law clerks Law clerks make recommendations to justices Deciding to Discuss Dead list not in contention to be reviewed Discuss list might have important question Both made by chief justice Rule of Four takes four justices to grant cert Factors Affecting Review 1 2 9 Technical criteria a Formatting b File fees c Rule talks about formatting Justicability a Judicially created rules basically restraints b quotprohibitionquot on advisory opinions state can have them federal govt cant c Standing who can bring a case to the court have to have been harmed and have a stake Ripeness will not hear premature cases Mootness has case already been resolved TDFDQ quotrepeatabilityquot is exception to mootness rule Political questions Conflict between courts a Uniformityquotoverwhelming factor b Rule 10 Important issues a Warren courtcriminal rights expansion Policy preferences a More likely to grant cert if they want to reverse lower court decision b Affirmative grant outcome will be favorable form an ideological perspective c Defensive denial don t hear case because they are in an ideological minority Identity of petioner a solicitor general b repeat players c one shot attorney d paupers petition Growth in Caseload 1st jumpbetween 19601970 1 Civil rights era 2 Interest groups are developing 3 Warren court 2quotd jump 19802007 1 More people in prison 2 Rehnquist courtrelaxed cert qualifications Ways to Manage Caseload 1 Law clerks 2 Cert pool 3 Judiciary act 1925 discretionary jurisdiction 4 Rehnquist only 8090 cases 5 Oral argument time a 1849 2hr limit per side b 1925 1 hr limit c 1970 30 min 6 Creation of discuss and deadlist Deciding Cases 1 Elements of the process a Background b Legal question c Legal resoning or llratio decidendi d Outcome 2 Theories of descion making a The legal theory Includes original intent literalism and precedent theory Judges seen as llcostrained actors Based on legal factors Doctrine oforiginal intent iv Interpreting based on founding intentions v Look towards federalist papers vi Marsh v Chambers 1 Prayer in Nebraska legislature 2 Holds for use of chaplins Pros S 1 Free from personal politics 2 Uniformity in law viii Cons 1 Sources are unclear 2 More than 1 intent b Plain meaningliteralism i Using fairly understood meaning of words ii Hugo black a big proponent iii Pros 1 Simplicity iv Cons 1 Several meanings c Precedentstare decisis i Practice of following precedent ii Pros 1 Stable and predictable 2 Legitimacy Ill Cons 1 Precedent on both sides 2 Supreme court has overruled itself Attitudinal Theory Policy preferences Why legal theory still shows up 0 Opinions 0 Trained in law 0 Respect of the court Freedom of the court 0 Lifetime appointment 0 Court of last resort 0 Discretionary jurisdiction Voting blocs patterns of agreement Pros o Realistic 0 Easy to understand court differences 0 Judicial selection Cons o Pessimistic o Unanimous decisions 0 What if a justice changes his mind Strategic Theory Endogenous colleagues Exogenous congress president public Pro 1 Work in groups 2 Notes in conferences 3 Vote changes Cons 1 Contact don t see others much 2 Weakening opinion 3 Normative perspective Political adjustment public does influence supreme court Takes 35 years Why 35 1 Judicial process 2 Become convinced public opinion has changed Congress s power over the courts Money Conformation Statutory override biggest threat Enact a const amendment Impeach Jurisdiction stripping NP F PS JE JE ofjustices Equal Rights No provision for equal rights in states until 14 h amendment Federal equal rights 5 h amendment Interest nt Strict Three things they think about in tests 1 Immutable characteristics 2 Access to the political process 3 History of discrimination Missouri ex rel v Canada 1938 First public school race case White law school Creates black law school Sweatt v Painter 1950 University of Texas law Creates black law school prairie view Say they have to let blacks in Texas U or give equal funds to prairie view McLauren v Oklahoma 1950 University of Oklahoma Black man wants his doctorate Allows him in but seperates him Court finds he does not have equal access Brown v Board 1954 INVOLVES 5 CASES STRIKES DOWN SEPARATE BUT EQUAL Brown v Board 21955 How to integrate Gave responsibility to local school boards llwith all deliberate speed PS 308 The Supreme Court amp Public Policy Spring 2011 Study Guide for Midterm Exam What is law and its essential elements hierarchy of law common law types of law the few similarities and many differences between courts purpose of appeals process error correction amp policymaking New Jersey Plan AntiFederalists V Virginia Plan Federalists at the Constitutional Convention structure of the federal judiciary and the Judiciary Act of 1789 President Washington s attempt to staff the US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall and his contributions to the US Supreme Court eliminating seriatim opinions and establishing judicial reView judicial reView players in the M arbury V Madison 1803 situation President John Adams Secretary of StateUS Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall the Midnight Judges Act 7 the Organic Act President Thomas Jefferson Secretary of State James Madison William Marbury Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 original jurisdiction amp the writ of mandamus Hamilton s Views on judicial reView in The Federalist No 78 original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court discretionary jurisdiction through the Judiciary Act of 1925 and the writ of certiorari general format of US Supreme Court oral arguments and justices conferences circuitriding duties of the justices the US Courts of Appeals amp the US District Courts vacancies on the US Supreme Court Constitutionallyprescribed rules for federal judicial selection 7 Article II Section 2 Senate Judiciary Committee ABA s historical role in judicial selection interest groups informal role in federal judicial selection What do presidents look for in a federal judicial nominee policy preferences typical career path of US Supreme Court justices


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

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Janice Dongeun University of Washington

"I used the money I made selling my notes & study guides to pay for spring break in Olympia, Washington...which was Sweet!"

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.