article III
establishes the roles, powers, and functions of the judicial branch of government
three level court system
lowest: US district courts
middle: US circuit court of appeals
highest: US supreme court
judge’s terms
- life appointment
- allows for consistency with law interpretation
- federal judges can be impeached
jurisdiction
original jurisdiction: the authority to hear cases for the first time
appellate jurisdiction: hearing cases from lower courts (the supreme court)
treason
“levying war”
“giving aid to an enemy”
- an accused person can only be convicted of treason with two witness testimonies
right to a jury trial
a jury trial is a citizen’s natural check on government accusations
judicial review
the power of the judicial branch to examine the constitutionality of legislative acts
US district courts
- 94 courts
- trial courts: plaintiff v. defendant
- federal criminial and civil cases
- 94 us district attorneys represent the federal government
- headed by the justice dept. attorney general
US circuit court of appeals
13 regional circuits
- the apposing parry can appeal based on certiorari
- petitioner v. respondent
- public hearing heard by 3 justices
- 200 federal judges
certiorari
to make more certain
the supreme court
1 court (article III)
- hears appeals from state and circuit courts
- can hear original jurisdiction in unique cases
- hear 80-100 cases per year
- a supreme courts ruling becomes law
common law & precedent
- precedent
- binding precedent
- persuasive precedent
precedent
- a firmly established legal position
- stare decisis “let the decision stand”
binding precedent
- district courts ruling the same as a similarly decided case from an upper court
persuasive precedent
- considering past decisions by distant district courts as a guiding basis for a decision
continuity and change over time
- long justice tenure & stare decisis = more continuity than change
- precedents may be overturned due to bad decisions
ex. plessy v. ferguson and brown v. board
the supreme court today
- more diverse than ever and a bit more unpredictable
john roberts and “judicial minimalism”
- “judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around”
- they take fewer cases and have longer discussions
strict constructionist
interprets the constitution in its original context
liberal constructionist
interprets the constitution as a living document that adapts to changing times
the new deal and fdr
roosevelt’s attempt to “pack” the supreme court led staunch conservatice justices to be more liberal minded
warren court
- very liberal
- he was unpopular with traditionalists
- is revered for strong leadership and upholding civil rights
burger court
- liberal
- lacked the leadership to make SCOTUS function efficiently
rehnquist court
- strict
- he reorganized procedures and caseloads
- an ideological shift took place in the 1990s
