1 / 32

Chapter 9

Chapter 9. The Judiciary: The Guardians of America’s Liberal Tradition. 9-2. Bush v. Gore. The Supreme Court decided the election of 2000 a month after voters had gone to the polls One of the key debates was on voter intent in Florida

decima
Download Presentation

Chapter 9

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Chapter 9 The Judiciary: The Guardians of America’s Liberal Tradition

  2. 9-2 Bush v. Gore • The Supreme Court decided the election of 2000 a month after voters had gone to the polls • One of the key debates was on voter intent in Florida • Other issues revolved around Florida court decisions and the Legislature

  3. 9-3 Judicial Review and Republican Government • Judicial Power • Political questions may eventually turn into judicial questions • The courts have gained more power, yet still remain passive especially in issues involving judicial review • Justices serving for life, is believed to be a protection for liberalism

  4. 9-4 Judicial Review and Republican Government • Federalists and Anti-federalists on the Judiciary • Once again, there was debate about how much power the courts would wield • Some thought the courts would undermine a representative government • Others felt the courts would be too weak to be a problem

  5. 9-5 Judicial Review and Republican Government • The Restraining Role of the Judiciary • Federalists and Anti-Federalists debated the judiciary’s role • Some saw it as an anchor to stabilize the government to protect individual liberties against democratic whims

  6. 9-6 The Judiciary In Defense of the Constitution • The early days of the Court were marked by questionable leadership • The Judiciary Act of 1801 was used to “pack” the courts with Federalist leaning judges • Jefferson waged a war with many courts fearing they would destroy liberty

  7. 9-7 The Judiciary In Defense of the Constitution • Marbury v. Madison • Marbury asked the court to force Madison to deliver the court commissions • Justice Marshall wrote that Jefferson and Madison needed to deliver the commissions to Marbury • But the commissions were invalid because part of the law was unconstitutional

  8. 9-8 The Judiciary In Defense of the Constitution • The Marshall Court’s Achievement • Marshall worked to raise the prestige of the Court by demonstrating impartiality • As a small body, Marshall wrote most of the opinions and worked on the other Justices so the opinions would be nearly unanimous • Marshall also practiced judicial restraint

  9. 9-9 The Judiciary In Defense of the Constitution • Nationalism • Marshall centralized the government more than some would have liked • He left a nationalist legacy that would endure for generations • One such issue was the banking done by the government

  10. 9-10 The Judiciary In Defense of the Constitution • Nationalism- McCulloch v. Maryland • Marshall upheld the bank as a classic statement of nationality • Marshall stated the constitution was the supreme law, but a bank was not a delegated power, it was an implied power • A state did not have the power to tax a legitimate part of the federal government

  11. 9-11 The Judiciary In Defense of the Constitution • Nationalism’s Limits • Jackson argued that the elected officials should be the ones to interpret the Constitution, not the courts • Marshall continued to make rulings that established the Court as the principal guardian of the Constitution and make it equal with the other branches

  12. 9-12 The Judiciary In Defense of the Constitution • Dred Scott and the Limits of Judicial Review • The decision damaged the reputation of the court • The case centered around a slave who made frequent trips to free areas • He sued claiming he should be free

  13. 9-13 The Judiciary In Defense of the Constitution • Dred Scott and the Limits of Judicial Review (continued) • The court ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional • It also ruled that African Americans had no right to sue in court- they didn’t have rights at all • The Civil War settled the issue

  14. 9-14 The Court and Property Rights • Slouching Toward Laissez-faire • In another court case, the Court restricted the power of the government • Parts of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act were ruled unconstitutional • Manufacturing was deemed intrastate, and the Act did not apply • The court protected property rights

  15. 9-15 The Court and Property Rights • Substantive Due Process • The Court made another ill-advised decision that restricted the powers of state and local governments • Other decisions reinforced the Laissez-faire mode of operation for government

  16. 9-16 The Court and Property Rights • The Judicial Challenge to the New Deal • The court resolved to adhere to economic rights • The Court ruled against federal laws involving wages and against state laws • The court angered many by not yielding to any economic reform

  17. 9-17 The Court and Property Rights • The Constitutional Revolution of 1937 • FDR wanted to pack the court with pro New Deal Justices • The Court continually struck down New Deal legislation on various grounds • Finally, some of the Justices changed their minds, and economic legislation has become generally constitutional

  18. 9-18 The Judiciary in Defense of Programmatic Rights • Ending Forced Segregation: the Brown Case and the Civil Rights Movement • Plessy v. Ferguson upheld segregation laws in the states • The Brown decision rested on sociological and psychological grounds • The Court was becoming more activist

  19. 9-19 The Judiciary in Defense of Programmatic Rights • Into the “Political Thicket”: The Court Upholds a Right to Fair Representation • The Warren Court became actively involved in deciding voting districts • Some felt the court was exceeding it bounds, others applauded the decisions saying it was good for democracy

  20. 9-20 The Judiciary in Defense of Programmatic Rights • A New Era of Substantive Due Process • Court cases have extended rights to include privacy as a right • Roe v. Wade continued the “right of privacy” and had strong political and policy effects • The Court’s activism continued

  21. 9-21 The Judiciary in Defense of Programmatic Rights • The Complex Legacy of the Brown Decision • A year after Brown, the court issued another ruling requiring schools to be integrated and had to rely on other governments to accomplish this, so it took quite some time • De jure discrimination was easier to fix than de facto deiscrimination

  22. 9-22 The Judiciary in Defense of Programmatic Rights • “Constitutional Policy” and Statutory Interpretation • Katzenbach v. McClung allowed Congress broad use of the commerce clause in some non-commerce areas • Through other court decisions, many administrative laws and other policies were converted to rights that needed protection

  23. 9-23 Has the Rights Revolution Run Its Course? • The Senate Rejects Judge Bork • Bork was nominated by Reagan and subject to bitter attacks by Democrats • His hearings reopened debates on the meaning of the Constitution and the Court’s interpretation of it • In the 1990’s Congress and the Court sparred over issues of employment

  24. 9-24 Has the Rights Revolution Run Its Course? • The “Center” Holds • Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey upheld the Roe decision in part because the court did not want to reverse an earlier decision • Some thought the Court was restraining itself too much by not revisiting past decisions to see if they were correct

  25. 9-25 Box 1 – Nuts and Bolts • Essential Legal Concepts • Criminal law cases • Misdemeanors • Felonies • Civil law cases • Contracts • Torts • Public, Constitutional, Administrative law

  26. 9-26 Box 2 – Nuts and Bolts • The Courts • There are federal and state systems with state courts doing most of the work • There are district, appellate and the Supreme Court at the federal level • The Supreme Court controls the cases it gets on appeal, but must accept cases the Constitution designates for it

  27. 9-27 Box 3 – Nuts and Bolts • How the Supreme Court Considers a Case • Once the court agrees to hear a case, it asks for input from the litigants • Oral arguments allow the Justices to query the attorneys for both sides • Secret deliberations are taken, and then opinions are written

  28. 9-28 Box 4 – Civil Rights • Civil Rights for the Disabled • Since 1990, courts have been working to decide the extent of handicapped individual’s rights • The Court recently decided that while the rights are important, forcing a business to excessive costs for handicapped people is not acceptable

  29. 9-29 Box 5 – Nuts and Bolts • The Department of Justice • The Attorney General is a cabinet member and the government’s lawyer • There are other levels with administrators approved by the Senate • There are several U.S. Attorneys in every state to handle the federal cases

  30. 9-30 Box 6 – Nuts and Bolts • Judicial Confirmation • The president gathers advice on who to nominate • The president checks with key Senators under the process of senatorial courtesy • The full Senate may confirm the nominated judge, after committee hearings on the candidate

  31. 9-31 Box 7 – Civil Liberties • Self Incrimination: Privileges vs. Punishment • McKune Warden, et. al. vs. Lile showed a difference between a right and a privilege • The Court ruled that incentives can be removed and that does not infringe upon any rights of the individual

  32. 9-32 Box 8 – Contemporary Public Policy • Obscenity and the Internet • Congress has attempted to legislate restrictions on what can be viewed over the Internet by minors • These laws have been challenged as restrictions on free speech, and in one case, the Court has agreed

More Related