Exam 1 Flashcards

Question

Appellate, Trial, and SC have diff functions

Answer 1

Trial: fact diners and collect evidence for decision Appellate: error correctors can affirm or reverse SC: clarify/unify law and devise legal rule

Answer 2

A legal ruling from one circuit court is in conflict with a legal ruling from another circuit Sends a STRONG signal to Supreme Court that they needed to hear his case to clarify/unify law Example: Brown v Davenport 2022 Issue: when a can a federal habeas court grant relief? 6th circuit court found that it can after solely conducting that the BRECHT TEST is satisfied Circut Courts 2nd 3rd 7th 9th 10th have held the breach test must be satisfied and the state courts Champlain application was unreasonable

Answer 3

No. They are not interested in fact-bound cases. they are worried about ones that have broader policy implications.

Answer 4

Chief Justice John Roberts- Bush Clarence Thomas- Bush Samuel Alito-Bush Sonya Sotomayor- Obama Elena Kagan- Obama Neil Gorsuch- Trump Brett Kavanaugh- Trump Amy Coney Barrett- Trump Ketanji Brown Jackson- Biden

Answer 5

-Historically not prestigious - now is Life time tenure Oct- June first Monday in oct -Passive Political institution -Almost complete dissection on what cases they decide -Most come from writ

Answer 6

Appellant vs Appellee Petitioner vs Respondent

Answer 7

Writ of certiorari/ appeal Cert pool (law clerks 4 each except Alito and Gorsuch create memos and circulate them) Discuss List: anyone made add one but no one may remove - they grant or deny Cases granted with rule of 4 Merit briefs: litigants summarize arguments and dictate how they present info Amicus curiae briefs “friend of court” may also submit brief Briefs have rules on questions, TOC< # of copies, word limits, color, and formatting Oral arguments: chance for litigants to argue and justices to ask questions or persuade other justices Conference: Private - ritualistic hand shakes and then chief states views and everyone proceeds in order of seniority Bargaining: exchange of memos, draft opinions They place their final vote by joining opinions

Answer 8

Usually written by 1 justice in majority and signed by others - not an extreme member If CJ is in majority he chooses who writes and it and if not then most senior member does

Answer 9

1. Provide judgements (winner/loser) for parties; resolve current legal dispute in question 2. Set legal policy 3. Provide some legal rule/solution for future disputes

Answer 10

- 9 member court, can make decisions with 8 or 7 or 6 -Need 6 for a quorum in order to conduct business and make decisions -5 votes to rehear case -Tied outcomes (4-4) lower decision stands

Answer 11

Rather than issue decision they will no longer deal with case realized they messed up and no longer want to decide

Answer 12

Latin for indigent of poor. Petitions coming from prisoners that do not have means to pay for appeal. Money waived

Answer 13

-Case selection NOT random -Circut conflict is single most important predictor of case being granted cert -Policy preferences matter

Answer 14

Can’t ignore minority interests and they will not grant cases in their favor cert anyway in fear that it will be granted cert and they cannot get majority and it will overturn or cause unfavorable precedent for them.

Answer 15

Appeals: litigants make appeal as a matter of right, certification, or certiorari. On appeal is issues Congress deals necessary - “probable jurisdiction” Certification: lower appellate courts file cert asking justices to respond to questions aimed at clarifying law. Petitons for writ of certiorari: send petition from lower court. Grant = will give review and denial= the lower court decision remains in force

Answer 16

Legal considerations: from Article III and it places constraints on federal tribunals to hear and decide cases. Listed in rule 10- conflict: disagreement among judges having to do with federal law. It also stresses importance of resolving federal questions. Political considerations: SG solicitor general: repeat player that only brings important cases to their attention, amicus curaie briefs, ideology of justices. Procedural considerations:

Answer 17

States that justices interpret the law and constitution by emphasizing case law, precedent, and history. Justices do not employ their own political beliefs but instead they focus soley on the law and its consitutionality. For example, orgininal meaning and intent.

Answer 18

The realistic theory of judging - emphasizing non-legalistic factors such as political preferences, ideology, and personal beliefs. This theory shows that justices are human beings subject to their own personal biases like everyone else. They interpert laws and the consitution based on their own values and beliefs.

Answer 19

originalists attempt to interpret the Consitution in line with what it meant at the time of its drafting

Answer 20

emphasizes the intent and Asks what the framers wanted to do. They assert that the frames acted in a calculated manner, - that is they knew what they were doing so why would we disregard that. They argue that if they scruniztie the intent of framers then justices can deduce constitutional truths which they can apply to cases. They also argue that it fosters stability in law

Answer 21

Considers what a clause meant to (or how it was understood by) those who enacted it (or at the time of its enactment.) Looking at the words of whatever constitutional provision he was interpreting and then interpertred them in line with what they would have originally meant to the people of the time they were writte. Emphasizes the meaning a reasonable speaker of Engish would have attached to the words, phrases, sentences, etc. at the time the original provision was adopted.

Answer 22

Places emphasis on what the Conistitution says. Values the constitution above all else and does not feel look further than its words.

Answer 23

interpretates particular clauses should be consistent with or follow from overarching structures or governing principles established in the constitution

Answer 24

Looks to what courts have written. Means “let the decision stand”. Meaning that justice should decide on the abscess of previously established rulings or precedent. Judicial tribunals should honor prior rulings. If a justice rely on past cases to resolve current cases than the law they generate becomes predictable and stable. It guides all legal actors. Legalist emphasize finding the controlling precedent (similar cases and facts to your case) and analogically analyzing it to shape your argument around it and focus on the similarities. Ex: Roper v Simmons (execute minors) Yes side argued Standford v Kentucky precedent No side argued Atkins v Virgina precedent

Answer 25

Considers the effects of various interpretations, suggesting that courts should adopt the one that avoids bad consequences. Members of court often consider the effects of a decision for different segments of society: agriculture, airlines, banks, churches, energy producers, financial institutions, physicians, railroads, retirees, and technology companies. The court is not necessialry interested in abstract doctrine alone, it wants to know how its doctrines will work when put into practice.

Answer 26

establishing the principle of the case. To determine whether a previous case applies as precedent, judges say one must strip away the nonessientals of the case and expose the basic reason for the supreme courts decision.

Answer 27

any expression in an opinion that is unnecessary to the decision reached in the case or that relates a factual situation other than the one actually before the court. These have no legal weight and are not binding. Judges may separate the ratio decendii from dicta. The task is difficult and allows justices to skirt precedent when they do not agree.

Answer 28

The force that drives the justices are anything but legal in orientation and that it is unrealistic to expect justices to shed all of their preferences, values, or ignore public opinion. The justices are people and like all people tend to have strong and pervasive political biases and partisian attachments.

Answer 29

Justices may be primarily seekers of legal policy or may be motivated by jursprudential principles, but they are not unconstrained actors who make decisions based solely on their own ideological attitudes or jursispential attitudes, but they are strategic actors who realize taht their ability to achieve their goals - whatever those goals might be - depends om a consideration of the preferences of other relevant actors (such as colleagues), the choices thet expect others to make, and the institutional context in which they act.

Answer 30

Public opinion Partasian politics Interest groups

Answer 31

1. Lower Courts need guidance, and the opinions show them how to apply the precedent to their cases. 2. Rule of law- the idea that everyone is subject to the same law and it should be predictable and stable. 3. Legitimacy: They do not have the power of the sword or the purse (enforce or implement) therefore they have to craft well-reasoned arguments.

Answer 32

Opinion that issued based on hypotheticals. Federal courts do NOT rule on them because they want to know how cases affect people.

Answer 33

extraneous material that is unnecessary to solve the dispute. No legal weight and is not legally binding. Judges disagree over what dicta is and what it is not

Answer 34

Cases that can be decided by courts. For example political doctrine cases are not decided by courts

Answer 35

case resolution may not provide much guidance to the lower courts for future disputes An opinion that is watered down, may lead to more litigation in the lower courts and create more problems down the road

Answer 36

-Syllabus is a well written summary but it is not official and cannot be relied on. -Case names ex: Smith v. Jones -One Justice authors majority the rest join -Organized into roman numeral sections based on topic -Beginniing recites facts of case -Rest is justices explaining their rationale/ reasoning for decision that leads to end of document and dispotion (affirm/reverse)

Answer 37

Majority (5) Plurality (4) no justice received enough votes to be majority

Answer 38

Sometimes? Maybe? Yes? If there is overlap in concurring opinions ?

Answer 39

When a justice agrees with the rationale and the outcome but wnats to add something

Answer 40

When a justice agrees with the outcome but not the reason or rationale

Answer 41

1. "Tomorrows Majority" what may be the minority today may be the majority tomorrow. It is the idea that the majority may be overturned and the minority opinion would become the precedent and caselaw. Therefore, justices want to highlight problems and advocate for their stance on the issue Legitmacy

Answer 42

Originalism (original intent and original meaning) * Textualism * Structural analysis * Stare decisis * Pragmatism * Polling jurisdiction

Answer 43

Justices use this because it adds apparent perception that it is ordered/logical/rational which persuades others to follow. Derived from deductive reasoning. For example: Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison Major Premise: Any law that is uncosnitutional is void Minor premise: The judicary act of 1789 is unconsitutional because it enlarges original jurisdiction Conclusion: The law is void Critics: if you agree with premise you may be stuck with conclusion.

Answer 44

Balancing: 2 competing interests tiktok: National Secuirty and Free speech Cost-Benefit Analysis: Pros + Cons Tradition Compentary community norms Foreign Precedent

Answer 45

Tests- a criterion, or set of criteria that a policy must meet in order for it to be constitutionally permissible * Burden of proof * Where is presumption? * Appropriate test? Who determines? * Area of law & relevant precedent * Tests are Judicial creations and they evolve For example, justices may test criteria for abortion that involves stage of pregnancy and circumstances

Answer 46

Late 1800's-1930s not much controversy judges interchangable 1930 great depression and stock market FDR threatened to stock the court if his economic relief programs not passed "Switch in time that saved nine" Owen Roberts switched from his conservative position and voted in favor. Showed that there is more than just legalism in decision making

Answer 47

Dissents begin to increase showing that judges are not interchangeable Dissents begin to increase Precedent is a smoke screen disgusing personal biases

Answer 48

US v. Carolene Products (1938) * Relatively unimportant case dealing with economic regulation of the content of milk * Rational basis review (minimal standard of review) * But in footnote 4- reserved stricter standards of scrutiny for other types of cases (e.g., civil rights and liberties) which Led to SCOTUS docket change (cases being petitioned started to come from civil rights and liberties cases, less economic issues). The amount of dissensus increases

Answer 49

Example of attitudinal model of realism Legal question: whether or not Flordia votes being counted differently violate dthe equal protection clause? -Conservatives voted for individual rather than state, which is flip flopped than normal vote. (Per curiam opinion: does not cite specific judges) Showed the case was really about Bush getting the 25 electoral votes or not Showed decisions are not pure legalism: they voted here based on Ideology, political preferences, attitudes, beliefs and values.

Answer 50

A plurality is when one opinion gets the most votes but not enough to constitute a majority. For example, if four people joined one opinion, three join another, and two have another, the plurality would be four. Plurality opinions are not official opinions but they can still have influence. They may set precedent for the outcome and not the reasoning if concurring opinions overlap in some way.

Answer 51

This interpretation is based on the idea of policy decisions vs legal decisions. Policy decisions are based on broader societal or economic implications, and they push policy in one direction. Legal decisions are based on applying the law to the facts of the case. Justices employ both of these. For example, Justice Potter Stewart probed the balance between constitutionality and societal impact within the oral arguments of Roe v. Wade.

Answer 52

Stare decisis is latin for let the decision stand. It states that we must honor judicial tribunals and follow their precedent for the law to be stable and predictable. It is derived from analogical reasoning and involves analyzing the precedent to the current similar case. You find the similarities and argue how this applies to your case. For example: Roper v. Simmons (Can a minor be executed) Yes side argued Standford v Kentucky (no consensus in America) No side argued Atkins v Virgina (consensus showed)

Exam 1 Flashcards

(79 cards)