11846249
Beschreibung
Karteikarten von Emily Bevis, aktualisiert more than 1 year ago
|
Erstellt von Emily Bevis
vor fast 7 Jahre
|
|
| Frage | Antworten |
| Define Federalism | - Structure of US Government - Division of political power between NATIONAL and LOCAL government - Contrast to UK unitary system - Power separation defined in constitution - Protect the individual interests of states |
| Define Judicial Review | - To assess the constitutional validity of law - 'checks and balances' over both the executive and legislative branch - not part of the constitution - 1st example = 1803, Marbury v Madison - Not in UK |
| Importance of Membership in Supreme Court | - 9 members - Membership lasts for life - Most important appointment - Allows President to leave a legacy after term is up - e.g. Brennan appointed by Eisenhower in 1956 but stayed in court until 1990 |
| Appointment process to the Supreme Court | 1) Wait for vacancy (av. every 2 years) 2) Search for suitable candidate 3) Shortlist drawn up with FBI checks 4) American Bar Association (ABA) suitability rating -a) Senate Confirmation -b) Candidate investigated by Senate Judiciary Committee - witnesses called |
| Examples of rejected candidates | - 1987, Robert Bork = rejected by committed and Senate, 'too conservative' - 1991, Clarence Thomas = split committee BUT won Senate by 4 votes - 2005, Harriet Miers = withdraw after public criticism - 2016, Merrick Garland = Congress refuse to even start the process |
| What is the Role of the Supreme Court? | - Supreme Court decided whether laws contravene the sovereign constitution - Judicial Review - Becoming a highly political role |
| List 5 Republican appointed Judges | - John Roberts = CHIEF JUSTICE (2005) - Anthony Kennedy = both loose and strict / 'swinger' (Reagan, 1988) - Clarence Thomas (Bush, 1991) - Samuel Alito (G.W Bush, 2006) - Neil Gorsuch (Trump, 2016) |
| List 4 Democrat appointed Judges | - Ruth Ginsburg (Clinton, 1993) - Stephen Breyer (Clinton, 1994) - Sonia Sotomayor (Obama, 2009) - Elena Kagan (Obama, 2010) |
| 3 reasons appointment system criticised | 1) Politicalised by President - same ideology 2) Politicalised by Senate - oppose if from dif. party than majority - 2016, Garland 3) Policialised by media - Thomas attacked despite experience |
| David Souter | - Appointed by Bush Senior - never asked his views on abortion - expected to have conservative outlook - BUT typically followed liberal outlook - Waited until Obama to retire = have a liberal replacement |
| Examples of Judicial Review ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL | 1) Bush vs Gore, 2000 - Florida recounts 2) Furman vs Georgia, 1972 - lethal injections as 'cruel and unusual' 3) Roe vs Wade, 1973 -Texan abortion law 4) DC vs Heller, 2008 - banning handguns 5) Adarand Constructors vs Pena, 1995 - positive discrimination in employment |
| Examples of Judicial Review ruled CONSTITUTIONAL x3 | 1) NFIB vs Sebelius, 2012 - 'Obamacare' imposed as an income tax 2) Obergefell vs Hodges, 2015 - guarantee to gay marriage 3) NY times vs US, 1971 - release pentagon papers |
| Limitations of Supreme Court Power x6 | - Court can reverse own rulings - Has no power of initiation - court cases brought to them - Has no enforcement powers - Limited flexibility due to constitution - By President (LATER) - By Congress (LATER) |
| How can the President limit the courts power? | - President appointments change court political balance - Judges need President support on rulings (BUT not always - Flag desecration, 1989) - Has power of enforcement |
| How can Congress limit the courts power? | - Appointment confirmation = influence membership - Impeachment power = use as threat - Can change the number of judges - BUT difficult to make constitutional amendments |
| Does the US Supreme Court have too much power? - YES x3 | - Judicial Review = 'checks + balances', influence policy - Un-elected body = power unchecked by term limits/election - Bring about change = imp. social change with political implications (Brown Ruling, 1954) |
| Does the Supreme Court have too much power? - NO x3 | - Checks already exist on power = membership, impeachment, public - Constitution sets out limits = defined role, no initiation or enforcement - Court is a 'servant' to the law = interpret the law NOT make it |
| Strict constructionism | - literal meaning of constitution - ORIGINALISM - NO open interpretation - Not judges responsibility to respond to changes in society - Bork and Scalia - Judicial restraint |
| Loose constructionalism | - Go beyond literal meaning - use variety of evidence - foreign laws - Protection of minorities - 'legislating from the bench' - Roe vs Wade, 1973 = interpretation of 9th amendment - Judicial activism |
| Different interpretations of Capitol punishment | - Originalists follow 5th Amendment of a "capitol crime" - Activists follow 8th Amendment of a "cruel and unusual punishment" |
| Judicial Activism | - Activists courts = reforming US society - Warren Burger's court - 1973, Roe vs Wade - Court seen as equal to exec. +legislative - Role in shaping and making policy - often a term used with neg. judgement |
| Judicial Restraint | - Court which uses previous rulings as guideline for future - follow precedent - Separation of powers - 'judical deference' - fewer statue laws made unconstitutional |
| Define Judicial Independence | A separation of powers away from the other branches of US Government and should not be subject to their influence - private or partisan |
| How does the Supreme Court protect the rights of citizens? | Through court rulings and interpretations, (particularly in active + loose courts) citizens are protected. - Religion, Law and Order, Freedom of expression, Abortion, Discrimination, LGBTQ, Guns |
| What are 'entrenched rights'? | The rights which are explicitly outlined in the US constitution - Bill of Rights |
| What is the concept of 'original intent'? | - Original intent of the Founding Fathers - Followed by strict constructionism - Originalism - There is a single, unified definition behind the constitution |
| Situation of current Supreme Court | - Kennedy to retire soon meaning an unbalanced court - Arguably active as upheld 'Obamacare', 2008, and legalised gay marriage, 2015 |
| Ways in which the Supreme Court has become increasingly politicalised | 1) Judicial Review - law like rulings, in UK gay marriage was legalised through Parliament 2) Types of Issues - abortion, LGBTQ, capital punishment etc long been featured in political debate due to party disagreement --> 2000 Bush v Gore = chose President? 3) Appointment process - partisan judgement, Garland 2016 4) 'Advice and Consent' powers - during divided Gov. become 'search and destroy' BUT contrast with Court limitations!!! |
Möchten Sie mit GoConqr kostenlos Ihre eigenen Karteikarten erstellen? Mehr erfahren.