Tuesday, October 10th, 2011
5.02
Identify the jurisdiction of
state and federal courts
PowerPoint for Judicial Branches
Take Effective notes
•
•
Essential Question: What are the elements of the
judical branch
What are the differences in supreme, federal, appeal,
circuit courts?
• JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
TEST THURSDAY!!
• Complete Icivics Worksheet
• When students complete
worksheet go to website
for Icivics and complete
online game:
• http://www.icivics.org/gam
es/court-quest
Wednesday, October 11th, 2011
5.02
Identify the jurisdiction of state
and federal courts
FREDDY THE FISH/SAM
THE STATE
PowerPoint for Judicial
Branches
Take Effective notes
•
•
Essential Question: What are the elements of the
judical branch
What are the differences in supreme, federal, appeal,
circuit courts?
• JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
TEST MOVED TO
FRIDAY!!!
• AFTER THE NOTES:
COMPLETE WORKSHEET
• BINGO FRIDAY 45 MINUTES
• TEST 45 MINUTES
• WORKSHEETS FOR
Definitions:
• Supreme Court: The highest federal court in the US, consisting of nine justices and
taking judicial precedence over all other courts in the nation
• Chief Justice: The presiding judge of a high court having several judges, especially
the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Associate: a member of the United States Supreme Court appointed by the
President and confirmed (or not) by the U. S. Senate. There are eight Associate
Justices and one Chief Justice. They serve for life or until voluntary retirement or
removal after being convicted after impeachment. (Only one was ever charged
(1805) and he was acquitted)
• Majority Opinion: The holding of a court consisting of multiple members, typically
an appellate court, issued together by the majority of the members , and
establishing the formal legal result of the case, as opposed to a dissenting opinion
• Minority Opinion: A minority opinion is an opinion by one or more judges in a legal
case who disagree with the decision reached by the majority. A minority opinion is
also termed dissenting opinion or dissent.
• Concurring: To agree; coincide; act together. To concur is to evidence consent in an
affirmative or concrete manner as opposed to merely acquiescing or silently
submitting to a decision. In appellate court practice, a judge may file a concurring
opinion, which expresses accord with the conclusions of the majority opinion filed in
the same lawsuit but at the same time separately states the judge's reason for
reaching the same conclusions.
• Opinion: the legal document stating the reasons for a judicial decision; "opinions
are usually written by a single judge
Definitions:
• Jurisdiction: 1. (Law) the right or power to administer justice and to apply laws2.
(Law) the exercise or extent of such right or power3. (Law) power or authority in general
• Appellate: (also known as appeals process or appellate procedure) consists of the
rules and practices by which higher courts review lower court judgments.
• Precedent: A court decision that is cited as an example or
analogy to resolve similar questions of law in later cases.
• US District Courts: A designation of an inferior state court that
exercises general jurisdiction that it has been granted by the
constitution or statute which created it.
• US Court of Appeals: The U.S. Courts of Appeals are intermediate
federal appellate courts. Created in 1891 pursuant to Article III of
the U.S. Constitution, the courts relieve the U.S. Supreme Court
from the burden of handling all appeals from cases decided by
federal trial (district) courts. These appellate courts have
jurisdiction to review all final decisions and some decisions of
federal district courts. In addition, the courts review and enforce
orders of numerous federal administrative bodies
Terms and Characteristics of Judges
Formal Qualifications:
• No constitutional or statutory qualifications are
stipulated for serving on the Supreme Court or
the lower federal courts. The Constitution merely
indicates that "the judicial Power of the United
States, shall be vested in one supreme Court" as
well as in any lower federal courts that Congress
may establish (Article III, Section 1) and that
the president "by and with the Advice and
Consent of the Senate, shall appoint...Judges of
the supreme Court" (Article II, Section 2).
Congress has applied the same selection procedure
to the appeals and the trial courts. There are no
exams to pass, no minimum age requirement, no
stipulation that judges be native-born citizens or
legal residents, no requirement that judges even
have a law degree.
Informal Requirements
At least four vital although informal factors determine who sits on the federal bench in
America: professional competence, political qualifications, self-selection, and the
element of luck.
Professional Competence: Although candidates for U.S. judicial posts do not have to
be attorneys, it has been the custom to appoint lawyers who have distinguished
themselves professionally. Although the political rules may allow a president to
reward an old ally with a seat on the bench, tradition has created an expectation that
the would-be judge have some reputation for professional competence, the more so
as the judgeship in question goes from the trial court to the appeals court to the
Supreme Court level.
Political Qualifications: Most nominees for judicial office have some record of political
activity for two reasons. First, to some degree judgeships are still considered part of
the political patronage system; those who have served the party are more likely to be
rewarded with a federal post than those who have not. Second, some political activity
on the part of the would-be judge is often necessary, because otherwise the
candidate would simply not be visible to the president, senator(s),or local party
leaders who send forth the names of candidates.
Self-Selection: While many consider it undignified and lacking in judicial temperament
for someone to announce publicly a desire for a federal judgeship, some would-be
jurists orchestrate discreet campaigns on their own behalf or at least pass the word
that they are available for judicial service. Few will admit to seeking an appointment
actively, but credible anecdotes suggest that attorneys often position themselves in
such a way that their names will come up when there is a vacant seat to fill.The
: A good measure of happenstance exists in virtually all judicial
appointments. Being a member of the right party at the right time or being visible to
the power brokers at the right moment often has as much to do with becoming a
judge as one's professional background.
Marbury v. Madison
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DQ_K94vflM&feat
ure=related
: This is the first time the Supreme Court
overturns an act of Congress.
• Checks & balances in action!
• This opinion is a government document, a type of
primary source.
• The Supreme Court of the United States established its
authority to review and invalidate government actions
that conflict with the Constitution of the United States.
• This authority is known as the Power of
1st Amendment Cases
• Schenck v. US:
– http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=722ltkjl2y0&feature=related
• Did the Espionage Act of 1917 violate the First Amendment rights of
free speech and free press? Was there a right to free speech against
the draft?
• “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech or of
the press.”
• In writing the opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. set the “clear
and present danger” test
– Standard test in cases where a US law limits a citizen’s 1st
Amendment rights
– Law is deemed constitutional if it can show that the
language/action it prohibits poses a “clear and present danger”
• Established that certain speech allowed during peacetime may be
prohibited during wartime
• Clear and Present Danger
– Separates protected speech (public criticism of government) from
unprotected speech (advocacy of illegal action)
Korematsu vs US
• Korematsu v. United States was a landmark
United States Supreme Court case concerning
the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066,
which ordered Japanese Americans into
internment camps during World War II. In a 6-3
decision, the Court sided with the government,
ruling that the exclusion order was
constitutional. The opinion held that the need to
protect against espionage outweighed
Korematsu's individual rights, and the rights of
Americans of Japanese descent.
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96nXXjww5c0
Tinker v. Des Moines
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UagZXxlshZ
0&feature=fvwrel
• Students have the right to freedom of
expression.
• May not create substantial disruption
• May not infringe on the rights of others
• Armband = symbolic act of “pure speech”
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
• http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/6356829/
government-project
Texas v. Johnson
Civil Right Cases
•
•
•
•
•
•
Plessy v. Ferguson
Brown V. Board of Education
Tinker v. Des Moines
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
Roe V. Wade
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
Which courts are included in the
judicial branch of government
What is the Supreme Court’s role in
issue related to the Constitution?
What is the purpose of the majority
and concurring opinion issued by the
Supreme Court
What is the purpose of a dissenting
opinion
What role does precedent play in
Supreme Court decisions?
Why do Supreme Court Justices serve
life terms?
Besides death, by what other means
might a Supreme Court justice leave
the court?