Shea chapter 9

1,297 views

Published on

Published in: News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,297
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
550
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • As the Supreme Court considered the legal issues involved in challenges to the health care reform law, emotions ran high among segments of the public, including people on both sides of the issue. Do public protests at the Supreme Court have any effect on the justices’ decisions? Should the justices pay any attention to public opinion when they decide cases?
  • Why do nine unelected judges on the Supreme Court have the power to strike down legislation passed by the two branches of government that are democratically elected? Author Christopher E. Smith puts the power of the Supreme Court into perspective by looking at their decision on the health care reform act.
    TO THE INSTRUCTOR: To access the videos in this chapter, please enter your Pearson or MyPoliSciLab username and password after clicking on the link on the slide.
  • Do you have confidence in the U.S. court system? Watch this video to discover what the founders did to make sure the federal judiciary would be independent of political influence. You’ll also learn about an important check the Supreme Court has on the other two branches of U.S. government.
  • The Supreme Court case challenging President Barack Obama’s health care reform law was one of the most closely watched cases in years. Opponents argued Congress didn’t have the right to require people to buy health insurance.
    The case returned to a question that has divided political scientists for years: How much power should judges have, and when, if ever, should the nine unelected justices on the Supreme Court overturn a decision made by the elected members of Congress?
    Ultimately, the Court upheld the law by a 5-4 vote. This chapter focuses on the federal judiciary and its structure, processes, and power. In this section we will look at the structure and processes of the trial courts, appellate courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • How does our court system work? American courts use an adversarial system, in which opposing attorneys represent the interests of their clients. (By contrast, many other countries use an inquisitorial system, in which judges take an active role in investigating cases and questioning witnesses.) Our courts process disputes, determine whether accused individuals have committed crimes, define individuals’ rights, and shape public policy.
    There are two types of courts: trial courts and the appellate courts that review decisions of those trial courts. Both types operate in parallel systems at the state and federal levels.
    We also have a dual court system, meaning these state and federal courts operate at the same time in the same geographic region. Both court systems handle criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits.
    In trial court, lawyers present arguments to a jury. Trial courts, which are called district courts in the federal system, have original jurisdiction, which means they receive cases first and make the initial decision. Most cases, however, don’t reach a jury; they are resolved via settlements in civil cases and plea bargains in criminal cases.
  • Table 9.1A shows some of the key structural differences between the Federal Court System and the State Court System.
  • Table 9.1B shows the different paths a case may take to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • One level up from the trial courts are the appellate courts. They have appellate jurisdiction, meaning they review specific errors that may have occurred in trial court proceedings or in the decision itself.
    In the federal system, the U.S. courts of appeal are divided into 11 numbered circuits. There is also one for the District of Columbia and one for patent and trade cases. There are no juries nor witness testimony at the appellate court level; instead, the court considers written arguments, called appellate briefs, as well as oral arguments made by the attorneys.
    When they are ready to announce a decision, appellate courts release it in the form of a majority opinion. Some judges who agree with the overall decision but not all aspects may write a concurring opinion, and those who disagree may write a dissenting opinion. The highest appellate court in the U.S., also known as the court of last resort, is the Supreme Court.
  • In 2011, actor Mel Gibson entered a “no contest” plea for an alleged act of violence against a former girlfriend and received a punishment of community service and probation. How can we make sure that all defendants, both rich and poor, receive the vigorous representation by defense attorneys that is a central element of the adversary system?
  • Figure 9.1 shows us how the federal courts of appeals are divided, geographically, into separate circuits.
  • As we noted earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court is the court of last resort. It is an unusual appellate court because it also has original jurisdiction in a limited number of instances, mostly involving disputes between two states. It has authority over any federal court cases or state court decisions that concern the U.S. Constitution or federal law.
    The nine justices on the Supreme Court select the cases they will review – about 70 or 80 from more than 7,000 requests each year. Attorneys wishing to have their case heard present a petition for a writ of certiorari, which directs a lower court to send a case on up for review.
    When a case is selected, the justices consider the submitted appellate brief and hear oral arguments by the attorneys. They then conference behind closed doors and vote. The chief justice, if he is in the majority, assigns a justice to write the majority opinion. Justices are free to write concurring opinions or even dissenting opinions.
  • Table 9.2 shows how the rate of support among Supreme Court justices for civil rights and liberties claims is typically used to classify justices as “liberal” (frequent support) or “conservative” (infrequent support).
  • Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is sworn in by Chief Justice John Roberts in 2009. Justice Sotomayor’s parents were born in Puerto Rico, and she is considered the first Hispanic justice to serve on the nation’s highest court.
    Is it important that the Supreme Court’s composition represent the nation’s diversity with respect to race, gender, ethnicity, religion, and other demographic factors?
  • Now that we’ve discussed what happens during the appellate court process, please answer this brief question.
  • Unlike with trial courts, there is no jury trial, new evidence, or witness testimony at the appellate court level.
  • The Framers of the the U.S. Constitution did not expect the judicial branch to be as powerful as the executive and legislative branches. In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton called the judiciary the “least dangerous” branch of the government because it lacked the power of “purse or sword” that the other branches could use to shape policy and spur people to follow their decisions.
    Hamilton wasn’t wrong; he just failed to foresee how the judiciary would evolve into an accepted policymaking institution. Such powers of the judiciary include judges’ authority over constitutional and statutory interpretation, the power of judicial review, and in the federal court system, judges’ protected tenure in office.
  • Alexander Hamilton believed that the judiciary would be the least powerful branch of American government under the U.S. Constitution. Although the judiciary became more powerful than Hamilton predicted, is it more or less powerful than the other branches of government?
  • Often, the wording of laws and statutes passed by legislators may contain ambiguities. When there are disputes over the meaning of words and phrases in statutes, lawsuits are filed and judges are called upon to provide interpretations. Therefore, judges can provide meaning to those laws.
    Legal rules created by judges’ decisions are typically referred to as case law.
    For example, the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment,” but doesn’t say exactly what that means. Judges have to decide whether certain punishments or practices, such as declining to provide medical care to a prisoner or corporal punishment in schools, meets the standard for cruel and unusual punishment.
    The authority judges have to interpret these laws is the main reason political battles arise whenever the president appoints a judge. Various political parties and interest groups want judges who will interpret the laws in ways those groups agree with.
  • One of the most significant powers of American judges is that of judicial review. Judges can strike down statutes enacted by Congress or invalidate actions by the president by declaring that these statutes or actions violate the Constitution.
    This concept came about through the case of Marbury v. Madison. William Marbury had been appointed to a judicial position, but he never received his commission. He sued to get it, following the requirements of the Judiciary Act of 1789. Marbury sought a writ of mandamus, a traditional legal order in which a court directs a government official to take a specific action required by law.
    The Supreme Court ruled that Marbury deserved his commission, but that the legal maneuver he used – a writ of mandamus directed at the Supreme Court – was unconstitutional. With that, the Supreme Court struck down a provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789, and judicial review was born.
  • Table 9.3 describes several instances of judicial review.
    Activity: Ask students to imagine that the Supreme Court did not have the power of judicial review. What person, branch, or level of government do they think would determine what was constitutionally permissible?
  • Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison helped establish the concept of judicial review. Do you think judicial review is implied by the Constitution, or did Marshall act inappropriately in announcing this important judicial power in a Court opinion?
  • The Constitution specifies that federal judges will serve “during good Behavior.” This has effectively come to mean life-time tenure, since these judges typically are removed through impeachment only if they commit a crime.
    This tenure illustrates how important the independence of judicial decision makers is. If judges are not afraid of losing their jobs they will focus only on making the right decisions. For example, many of the controversial judicial decisions in the mid-twentieth century advancing the equality of African Americans were criticized because of racial prejudice.
    In the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was frustrated because Supreme Court justices were using judicial review to invalidate New Deal laws. He proposed, unsuccessfully, to restructure the Supreme Court in such a way that would allow him to appoint an additional six justices to the court. This plan became known as the “court-packing plan.” Negative reaction by the public demonstrated how much Americans valued the courts’ independence.
  • Discover how the Supreme Court gained a check on the other two branches after the U.S. Constitution was written. East Central University political scientist Christine Pappas discusses Marbury v. Madison and analyzes how the power of judicial review has impacted campaign finance law.
  • This figure shows how long justices have served on the U.S. Supreme Court, and their age.
    Some justices have served on the Court for several decades and continued to decide cases beyond the age when most people experienced diminished physical capacity and retire from their jobs. Should we consider limiting the years of service or age of Supreme Court justices? What would be a reason to avoid placing any limitations on Supreme Court justices?
  • We’ve discussed at length why this landmark case was important. Let’s take a quick review with this question.
  • This decision established the right of the Supreme Court to review laws passed by Congress and determine their constitutionality.
  • Political parties and interest groups view the judicial selection process as an important way to influence court decisions. By encouraging judgeships for individuals who share their political values, these groups can enhance their chances for favorable rulings when these groups turn to litigation to shape public policy. In this section we will look at judicial selection in the federal system and in the states.
  • Federal judges, like ambassadors and cabinet secretaries, must be appointed by the president and confirmed by a majority vote of the Senate. Because there are nearly 850 judgeships in the federal district courts of appeals, the president doesn’t know the details of all the vacancies.
    For lower federal court positions, the president relies on the advice of staffers, senators and others from his own party. Through a process known as senatorial courtesy, senators from the president’s party have virtual veto power over nominees for district courts in their home state.
    After an individual is nominated, the Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearings, and then votes whether to recommend the nominee to the full Senate. Typically the Senate goes with the recommendations of the committee. In controversial cases, however, the minority party may try to block a vote on the nomination with a filibuster – keeping discussion going indefinitely until three-fifths of the senators vote to end it.
  • States have their own methods for selecting judges. Generally, four methods are used for judicial selection: partisan elections, in which the candidates are declared members of a political party; nonpartisan elections, in which the candidates are not affiliated with a political party; gubernatorial appointment, in which the governor selects the judge; and legislative appointments, in which the state lawmaking body does the choosing.
    More and more states are moving away from elections, however, in an attempt to reduce the influence of politics on the judiciary.
  • Table 9.4 shows the primary manner in which the different states select judges.
  • Let’s review what we just discussed with a quick question.
  • The first hearing for a nominee takes place in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  • When most people think about the way judges make decisions, they probably assume that judges simply follow established legal rules, and often that is true. However, the political battles over Supreme Court nominations and other judgeships show that judges do not merely “follow the law” when making their decisions. They also use their own value and judgments.
    These values and judgments can have a significant impact on the American policy landscape, which is why political parties and interest groups pay such close attention to the judicial selection process.
  • When judges hear a case, they first must determine the facts of the case. Then, they make their decision by applying the rules already established by higher courts in similar cases. By following these rules, judges are relying on case precedent, or the body of previous judicial opinions relevant to the case.
    When it comes to interpreting cases involving the Constitution, federal judges and justices tend to fall into one of two camps: those who interpret according to “original intent” and those who support a more “flexible” interpretation.
    Original intent subscribers argue that the Constitution should be interpreted in strict keeping with the original meanings intended by the people who write and ratified the Constitution. The flexible interpretation camp argues that justices should be able to interpret in light of current values and policy problems.
  • This photo shows Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who favors the original intent approach to interpreting the Constitution. Can you anticipate any criticisms that could arise from attempting to follow original intent for other provisions in the Constitution and Bill of Rights?
  • Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy favors the flexible interpretation approach. What, if anything, prevents Supreme Court justices from going “too far” by using flexible interpretation to say that the Constitution means whatever they want it to mean?
  • Political scientists have no shortage of theories to explain how and why Supreme Court justices vote the way they do. The idea that justices follow specific theories of constitutional interpretation and carefully consider precedents when making decisions is called the legal lodel. Critics of this model, however, point out that justices often ignore theory or precedent when issuing an opinion.
    Another theory is the attitudinal model, which suggests that justices are driven by their own values and attitudes.
    A third model is the strategic voting model. According to this theory, justices vote strategically in order to advance their goals, even if that means voting against their own beliefs. For example, a justice might vote with the majority in a case he opposes in order to influence the majority opinion, which has far-reaching consequence.
    In recent years, political scientists have also considered what has been called new institutionalism, which views courts as institutions in their role within the political system.
  • Why do legal scholars and political scientists disagree over how judges make decisions? East Central University political scientist Christine Pappas analyzes this and other questions scholars study. She explains how the other branches of government limit the role of the judiciary in public policy-making, and discusses research on how public opinion influences the courts.
  • This photo shows Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan during her confirmation hearings. Because it was widely believed that Kagan, as an appointee of President Obama, might strengthen the Court’s liberal wing, conservative Republican senators opposed her confirmation. Is it proper for senators to oppose the nomination of a highly-experienced nominee simply because they believe he or she will make decisions with which they will disagree on certain issues?
  • Let’s review the concepts we studied in this section with this brief question.
  • The legal model suggests that justices reach their decisions by carefully weighing theories if constitutional interpretation and case precedent.
  • Through the power of judicial review, the Supreme Court has the last word on issues of constitutional interpretation. Supreme Court justices can strike down federal legislation. In this simulation, you will explore this process as you serve as a Supreme Court clerk.
  • Let’s explore the judges who have been most responsible for controversial decisions by completing this activity.
  • Who uses the court system? In theory, any individual can do so by filing a legal action. For most individuals, disputes would fall in the “small claims” category, such as for a landlord-tenet dispute. Anything above that level is typically expensive and requires legal expertise. So this avenue of policy making – using the courts – tends to be far more accessible to organized interests and the wealthy than to common individuals.
  • Small interest groups tend to like using the court system to effect change because it is still cheaper than convincing voters through mass mailings or changing legislation by hiring lobbyists. As long as the interest groups have the needed expertise (often through lawyers who have litigated similar cases and know the case law), and the litigation resources (enough money to keep the case going), using the court system can be an attractive option. Often the interest groups can convince attorneys to work pro bono, which means volunteering their time.
  • This figure outlines the policy-shaping litigation on the University of Michigan affirmative action cases.
  • Everyone seeking to shape public policy through the court system uses certain strategies. Sometimes those strategies are as simple as picking which cases to pursue or even which court to file the case in.
    Interest groups often are on the look out for test cases that can be used to shape policy. They may recruit plaintiffs and then pay the legal costs.
    Another important consideration is where to file the case. Interest groups have to consider whether they are more likely to get a favorable ruling in state court or federal court, for example.
    They must also consider how to frame the argument. They may have to decide which legal issues to raise and which arguments are more likely to appeal to the judge hearing the case.
    Finally, interest groups may use the media attention that court cases are likely to draw to further plead their case for a change in public policy.
  • Could such public demonstrations ever influence the justices by informing them of the intensity of people’s feelings about an issue? Or do such demonstrations only catch the attention of the news media?
  • Should the Supreme Court have the power to knock down popular laws? This segment uses the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Arizona (2012) to illustrate the tension between protecting the law and having a government that's run by the people.
  • All litigants use some kind of strategy. Now I want to check your understanding of the strategy used by special interest groups.
  • All of these are important strategic considerations for special interest groups.
  • Court decisions are not automatically implemented or obeyed. Judges have limited ability to ensure that their orders are carried out, and generally rely on public obedience and enforcement by the executive branch. It doesn’t always work. Three cases that illustrate the weakness of the Court include Watergate, the Cherokee removal and Brown v. Board of Education.
    In Watergate, President Richard Nixon conspired to cover up information about a burglary at the Democratic Party Headquarters. Nixon was ordered by the Supreme Court to hand over secret recordings he’d made. There was some concern he’d refuse. Nixon did hand over the tapes, but resigned shortly thereafter.
    In the 1830s the Cherokee Nation successfully litigated a case against laws that ordered their removal from their lands. But President Andrew Jackson refused to use his power to enforce the ruling, and the Cherokee were forced out.
    Finally, despite the landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, which declared racial segregation in schools was unconstitutional, American schools remained segregated long after 1954. Federal troops had to intervene in order to desegregate schools.
  • We covered these these cases. Before we continue, can you answer this question?
  • Without an executive branch to enforce its rulings, there is little the Supreme Court can do. Sometimes it even needs public opinion to convince the executive branch to enforce a ruling.
  • The framers of the Constitution may not have intended this, but American judges have the power to change public policy. This can be especially controversial when you consider the fact that federal judges have life-time tenure in their positions. What if they make decisions that create bad public policy? Some critics call judicial policy making undemocratic.
    Advocates, however, see judicial policy making as a way to balance the power of majority rule. The majority party in power may not be able to be trusted to pass laws with minority rights, especially those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, in mind. For example, racial segregation was strongly supported by many whites in the North and South. Should majority rule have won out in that case?
    To ensure that majority interests do not trample the rights of minorities, the Constitution positions federal judges as the decision makers to protect constitutional rights.
  • This is the official portrait of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011. Do you think the Supreme Court has used its power appropriately in affecting policy issues? With which Supreme Court decisions do you disagree and why?
  • Let’s answer this question about the duties of federal judges.
  • Federal judges are tasked with all of the above.
  • As an ordinary citizen, it is not easy to bring a case to the Supreme Court, but it is not impossible. Author Christopher E. Smith considers the Supreme Court’s role in shaping public policy and he discusses how it historically exercised that role in issues related to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and privacy rights.
  • Shea chapter 9

    1. 1. 9The Judiciary
    2. 2. Video:The Big Picture 9 http://media.pearsoncmg.com/ph/hss/SSA_SHARED_MED IA_1/polisci/presidency/Shea_Ch09_The_Judiciary_Seg1_ v2.html
    3. 3. Video:The Basics 9 http://media.pearsoncmg.com/ph/hss/SSA_SHARED_MED IA_1/polisci/presidency/Seg2_Judiciary_v2.html
    4. 4. Court Structure and Processes  Trial Courts  Appellate Courts  The U.S. Supreme Court 9.1
    5. 5. Trial Courts  Dual court system  Criminal prosecution  Civil lawsuits  Jury trial  Original jurisdiction  Settlements and plea bargains 9.1
    6. 6. TABLE 9.1A: Structure of the American court system 9.1
    7. 7. TABLE 9.1B: Paths to the U.S. Supreme Court for criminal and civil cases in state and federal court systems 9.1
    8. 8. Appellate Courts  Appellate courts  Courts of last resort  No jury trials  Majority opinion  Concurring and dissenting opinions 9.1
    9. 9. 9.1 Actor Mel Gibson
    10. 10. FIGURE 9.1: Geographic jurisdiction of federal courts 9.1
    11. 11. The U.S. Supreme Court  Writ of certiorari  Justices choose the cases  Appellate briefs and oral arguments  Conference and vote  Majority opinion  Concurring and dissenting opinions 9.1
    12. 12. TABLE 9.2: Supreme Court Justices 9.1
    13. 13. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor 9.1
    14. 14. 9.1 All of the following are part of the appellate court process except: 9.1 a. Appellate briefs b. Jury trials c. Oral arguments d. Lower court review
    15. 15. 9.1 All of the following are part of the appellate court process except: 9.1 a. Appellate briefs b. Jury trials c. Oral arguments d. Lower court review
    16. 16. The Power of American Judges  Constitutional and Statutory Interpretation  Judicial Review  Federal Judges’ Protected Tenure 9.2
    17. 17. Alexander Hamilton 9.2
    18. 18. Constitutional and Statutory Interpretation  Statutes  May need interpretation  “Cruel and unusual punishments”  What does that mean?  Political battles over judge nominations  Arise given judges’ interpretive authority 9.2
    19. 19. Judicial Review  Marbury v. Madison  Established judicial review  Judiciary Act of 1789  Designed the federal court system  Writ of mandamus  Order by the court 9.2
    20. 20. TABLE 9.3: Judicial Review 9.2
    21. 21. Chief Justice John Marshall 9.2
    22. 22. Federal Judges’ Protected Tenure  Impeachment  Generally removed only for criminal activity  Court-packing plan  FDR’s attempt to influence the judiciary 9.2
    23. 23. Video: In Context http://media.pearsoncmg.com/ph/hss/SSA_SHARED_MED IA_1/polisci/presidency/Seg3_Judiciary_v2.html 9.2
    24. 24. FIGURE 9.2: U.S. Supreme Court justices’ length of service and age 9.2
    25. 25. 9.2 What did the case Marbury v. Madison establish? 9.2 a. “Cruel and unusual punishments” b. Judicial review c. Certain sections of the Judiciary Act of 1789 d. Writs of mandamus
    26. 26. 9.2 What did the case Marbury v. Madison establish? 9.2 a. “Cruel and unusual punishments” b. Judicial review c. Certain sections of the Judiciary Act of 1789 d. Writs of mandamus
    27. 27. Judicial Selection  Judicial Selection in the Federal System  Judicial Selection in the States 9.3
    28. 28.  Confirmation process  President appoints, Senate confirms  Senatorial courtesy  Filibuster Judicial Selection in the Federal System 9.3
    29. 29.  Partisan elections  Nonpartisan elections  Gubernatorial or Legislative appointment Judicial Selection in the States 9.3
    30. 30. TABLE 9.4: Primary methods of initial judicial selection for state judges 9.3
    31. 31. 9.3 Where is the first hearing held for a nominee for a federal judgeship? 9.3 a. Senate Rules Committee b. Senate Judiciary Committee c. Senate Floor d. Conference Committee
    32. 32. 9.3 Where is the first hearing held for a nominee for a federal judgeship? 9.3 a. Senate Rules Committee b. Senate Judiciary Committee c. Senate Floor d. Conference Committee
    33. 33. Judicial Decision-Making  Decision-Making and Case Precedent  Political Science and Judicial Decision-Making 9.4
    34. 34. Decision-Making and Case Precedent  Case precedent  Original intent  What did the framers intend?  Flexible interpretation  What do the words mean in light of current values? 9.4
    35. 35. Justice Antonin Scalia 9.4
    36. 36. Justice Anthony Kennedy 9.4
    37. 37. Political Science and Judicial Decision-Making  Legal model  Justices follow theories and consider precedents  Attitudinal model  Opinions driven by attitudes and values  Strategic voting vodel  Advancing a specific goal 9.4
    38. 38. Video:Thinking Like a Political Scientist 9.4 http://media.pearsoncmg.com/ph/hss/SSA_SHARED_MED IA_1/polisci/presidency/Seg4_Judiciary_v2.html
    39. 39. Justice Elena Kagen 9.4
    40. 40. 9.4 When Supreme Court justices weigh theory and precedent, they are following this concept: 9.4 a. Attitudinal model b. Strategic voting model c. Legal model d. New institutionalism
    41. 41. 9.4 When Supreme Court justices weigh theory and precedent, they are following this concept: 9.4 a. Attitudinal model b. Strategic voting model c. Legal model d. New institutionalism
    42. 42. Explore the Simulation:You Are a Supreme Court Clerk 9.4 http://media.pearsoncmg.com/long/long_longman_media _1/2013_mpsl_sim/simulation.html?simulaURL=10
    43. 43. Explore the Judiciary:Who Are the Activist Judges? 9.4 http://media.pearsoncmg.com/long/long_shea_mpslld_4/p ex/pex8.html
    44. 44. Action in the Court Pathway  Interest Group Litigation  Elements of Strategy 9.5
    45. 45. Interest Group Litigation  Expertise  Requires attorneys who know the law  Litigation resources  Lawyers who work pro bono 9.5
    46. 46. FIGURE 9.3: Policy-shaping litigation on the University of Michigan affirmative action cases 9.5
    47. 47. Elements of Strategy  Selection of cases  Choice of jurisdiction  Framing the arguments  Public relations and the political environment 9.5
    48. 48. Activists protesting outside the Supreme Court 9.5
    49. 49. Video: In the RealWorld 9.5 http://media.pearsoncmg.com/ph/hss/SSA_SHARED_MED IA_1/polisci/presidency/Seg5_Judiciary_v2.html
    50. 50. 9.5 Which of these is an important strategic consideration for special interest groups? 9.5 a. Selection of cases b. Choice of jurisdiction c. Framing the argument d. All of the above
    51. 51. 9.5 Which of these is an important strategic consideration for special interest groups? 9.5 a. Selection of cases b. Choice of jurisdiction c. Framing the argument d. All of the above
    52. 52. Implementation and Impact of Court Decisions  Watergate  Cherokee removal  Brown v. Board of Education 9.6
    53. 53. 9.6 What do Watergate, Brown v. Board of Education and the Cherokee removal cases illustrate? 9.6 a. The power of the Supreme Court b. The policy-shaping role of the Supreme Court c. The reliance of the Supreme Court on public and executive branch cooperation to enforce its rulings d. The need for judicial activism
    54. 54. 9.6 What do Watergate, Brown v. Board of Education and the Cherokee removal cases illustrate? 9.6 a. The power of the Supreme Court b. The policy-shaping role of the Supreme Court c. The reliance of the Supreme Court on public and executive branch cooperation to enforce its rulings d. The need for judicial activism
    55. 55. Judicial Policymaking and Democracy  Life-tenure of federal judges  Majority rule  Protection of rights for individuals 9.7
    56. 56. The U.S. Supreme Court 9.7
    57. 57. 9.7 The Constitution positions federal judges to do what? 9.7 a. Protect constitutional rights b. Temper majority rule c. Review laws for constitutionality d. All of the above
    58. 58. 9.7 The Constitution positions federal judges to do what? 9.7 a. Protect constitutional rights b. Temper majority rule c. Review laws for constitutionality d. All of the above
    59. 59. Discussion Question How does the Supreme Court set policy? Should policy-making be left to Congress and the executive branch? Why or why not? 9
    60. 60. Video: SoWhat? http://media.pearsoncmg.com/ph/hss/SSA_SHARED_MED IA_1/polisci/presidency/Shea_Ch09_The_Judiciary_Seg6_ v2.html 9

    ×