POLITICAL SCIENCE 346
Law and the Political System
Schedule #:
Class Meets:
Class Location:
Instructor’s Office:
Office Hours:
E-Mail:
Spring 2014
Edward V. Heck
22490
MW 1400-1515
Physics 148
Nasatir Hall 102
Monday, 3:30-4:30 p.m. and Wednesday, 12:30 – 1:30 or by appointment
heck@mail.sdsu.edu
The California Supreme Court finds protection for gay marriage in the state constitution, but
in the 2008 general election the state’s voters approve Proposition 8, which amends the California
Constitution to overturn the decision of the state’s highest court. A trial judge in Nevada sentences
O.J. Simpson to at least nine years in state prison following his conviction on 12 criminal counts,
including kidnapping and armed robbery. After a trial featuring testimony by expert witnesses in
Federal District Court in San Francisco, Judge Vaughn Walker rules in favor of two same-sex
couples who claim that Proposition 8 (“only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California”) violates the U.S. Constitution – a decision later affirmed by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In San Diego, John Albert Gardner III avoids the death penalty by
pleading guilty to the shocking rapes and murders of two teenage girls. A prisoner serving a life
sentence in Florida files suit claiming that the prison system’s soy-based diet constitutes cruel and
unusual punishment, while California prisoners win a judicial victory when the U.S. Supreme Court
orders state officials to reduce overcrowding in state prisons in order to protect prisoners’ rights to
health care. In response, Governor Jerry Brown announces that the state will reduce the prison
population primarily by transferring inmates from state prisons to county jails, but a three-judge
federal district court later concludes that the state has not fully complied with court orders. A 92year old woman who sold “suicide kits” over the Internet gets probation after pleading guilty to
violations of federal tax laws. The U.S. Supreme Court shocks conservative activists with a ruling
that the controversial “individual mandate” provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act – popularly known as “Obama care” – is constitutional. In the 2012 general election, President
Obama is elected to a second term, while California voters modify the state’s controversial “three
strikes” law. Voters in two western states “legalize” recreational use of marijuana even though
possession, production, or sale of marijuana remains a crime under the federal Controlled Substances
Act. On the last day of its 2012-13 term, the Supreme Court reopens the door for gay marriage in
California and strikes down the key provision of “DOMA” -- the act of Congress prohibiting federal
recognition of same-sex marriages recognized under state law.
What do these events of recent years have in common? All illustrate the topic of “Law and
the Political System,” and all have been headline news. If you follow newspapers or the Internet for
a week, a month, or a semester, you will quickly learn to appreciate the truth of Professor David W.
Neubauer’s observation that “it is hard to read the day’s news without being confronted with some
aspect of court actions or how the law influences choices people and institutions make” (Neubauer
and Meinhold, Judicial Process, 2004, p. xiii).
-1-
These headline-making events and court cases leave little doubt that legal disputes and
judicial decisions have a major impact on the American political system. On the other hand, it is
important to remember that most of these cases are not really typical of those handled by the courts
on a day-to-day basis. The reality is that each year approximately 100 million cases are filed in
America’s courts. Many are of little interest except to those directly involved. Our primary goal for
the semester is to learn more about “law and the political system” so that we will be able not only to
appreciate the cases that make headlines, but also to understand the more typical cases that courts
address on a routine basis. In assigned readings, class discussions, and special projects we will adopt
what scholars have called the “law in action perspective,” applying a wide variety of methods in an
effort to learn all we can about how courts handle “typical” criminal and civil cases. We can then
focus on similarities and differences as we follow more celebrated cases through the mass media.
This semester we will also emphasize the day-to-day work of lawyers, the professionals who serve as
intermediaries between legal institutions and the public. For political scientists who study the courts,
the bottom line is that it is important to understand the legal system because courts make
authoritative decisions on a wide range of important issues.
Political Science 346, therefore, is designed to provide a broad, general overview of courts as
political institutions and judges as political actors. We will seek to understand the dynamics of
American courts at all levels – from local civil and criminal trial courts to the U.S. Supreme Court.
After completing this course, each student should understand how courts are involved in political
processes and should be developing the ability to place news reporting of court cases in context. For
political science majors and minors, the course provides credit in American politics (Field II).
REQUIRED BOOKS
The required books for this course are:
Robert A. Carp, Ronald Stidham, and Kenneth L. Manning, Judicial Process in America (9th
edition, 2014).
Richard Brisbin and John Kilwein, Real Law Stories: Inside the American Judical Process
(2010).
You will need to have access to both books as soon as possible. Other assigned readings will
be made available through the “Blackboard” site for this class under the “course documents”
heading. Please note, however, that this class is not a “Blackboard course”; even the most
conscientious reading of material posted on “Blackboard” is no substitute for regular class
attendance and active participation in class discussion. For students who enjoy reading novels, I
recommend John Grisham’s A Time to Kill (for a fictional tale about a criminal trial in a
“celebrated” case) or The Appeal (for insights into civil litigation and state judicial selection). A
review essay on A Time to Kill is one of three options you may choose for the “final course project.”
You may also be expected to complete additional readings for oral reports or in-class activities. I
encourage you to make a habit of checking the Internet or a daily newspaper for stories on current
events that are related to our ongoing study of law and the political system and to turn in a copy of an
interesting story about courts and the judicial process at the first class meeting of each month.
-2-
STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of the semester, you will be able to:






explain the varieties of judicial tribunals that constitute the American dual court
system (i.e. “find the courthouse”).
discuss the wide variety of tasks performed by lawyers and judges and provide
specific examples of different kinds of legal work.
explain the informal processes through which most court cases are resolved and
compare the decision making process in routine cases to the handling of “celebrated”
cases reported in the mass media.
take a position in current debates on legal issues and support your conclusions with
well-reasoned arguments.
analyze data derived from social science studies of law, courts, and the political
process.
observe courts in action and compare and contrast different kinds of judicial
proceedings using tools and concepts drawn from assigned readings.
COURSE REQUIREMENTS AND GRADING
The testing program for this class includes frequent “progress” quizzes, two major exams
during the semester, and a final exam or course project. Course requirements and points available
for each activity or assignment are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
“Progress” Quizzes
Contributions to Class Discussion
Midterm Exam I (March 5)
Midterm Exam II or “Semifinal Exam” (April 23)
“Final Course Project” (choose comprehensive final
exam or one of two course project options)
TOTAL
45 points
15 points
45 points
45 points
50 points
200 points
Course grades will be determined by the cumulative point total for these assignments. The
range for each grade is as follows:
A =
A- =
B+ =
B =
B- =
C+ =
C =
184-200 points
180-183 points
176-179 points
164-175 points
160-163 points
156-159 points
144 -155 points
3
C- = 140-143 points
D = 120-139 points
F = below 120 points
“Progress Quizzes” are short in-class tests designed to check your progress in mastering
reading assignments and topics discussed in class. These quizzes will consist primarily of objective
questions (multiple choice, true/false, short answer) and may be administered in oral or written form.
There will be seven such quizzes (each worth nine points) this semester. Only the five highest scores
on these quizzes will count in determining your grade; the two lowest scores will be dropped.
However, it is important to note that any student who is not present when a progress quiz is given
will automatically receive a score of “0” for that quiz. It is simply not possible to adjust the quiz
schedule to accommodate individual needs (even if such realities of life as family emergencies, car
breakdowns, or inflexible work requirements make it impossible for you to be in class), so makeup
quizzes are not available. Dropping the two lowest scores means that quizzes should make a positive
contribution to your final grade, but you need to make the effort to be present for as many quizzes as
possible. Specific dates for these quizzes are indicated under weekly reading assignments on the
syllabus. When a quiz is given at the beginning of class, the subsequent discussion will normally be
organized around the quiz questions.
Because I expect each member of the class to be actively engaged in the learning enterprise, a
small percentage of your course grade will be based on contributions to class discussion. Each
member of the class will receive a score between “0” and “15” based on his/her overall contributions
throughout the semester. When it comes to assessing the value of individual contributions to class
discussion, quality will be weighed more heavily than quantity. Since it is impossible to contribute if
you are not present, attendance counts. The single best way to contribute is to volunteer for an inclass activity that involves an oral presentation to the class, such as a debate, a court simulation
(during the semester we will schedule one or more simulations of a case from Texas involving
abortion rights), or an oral summary of key points of one of the interviews in Real Law Stories. At
the first class meeting of each month students may earn “contributions” credit for handing in a copy
of a news story related to law, courts, and the judicial process. To encourage active participation, I
may sometimes call on specific individuals to answer questions or comment on assigned readings. In
short, there are many ways to earn points for contributions, but you can almost guarantee a high score
by attending class regularly, asking or answering questions, making one oral presentation or
participating in a simulation in class, and handing in relevant news stories on a regular basis. No
“extra credit” is available under this heading.
Mastery of course materials will be measured in part by two 45-point in-class exams. These
required exams have been scheduled for Wednesday, March 5 (first midterm) and Wednesday, April
23 (second midterm or “semifinal” exam). These exams may include an essay or hypothetical
problem, as well as identification or other short answer questions and multiple choice or other types
of objective questions. Students are expected to take these exams at the scheduled times. However,
anyone who is unable to take a major exam as scheduled because of serious illness or other
compelling reason may establish eligibility for a makeup exam by contacting the instructor by email
(heck@mail.sdsu.edu) before the beginning of the exam.
4
At the end of the semester, students will have a choice of three different options for
completing course requirements – a comparative court watching project, a review essay on John
Grisham’s A Time to Kill, or a comprehensive final exam. For most students I would recommend
the court watching project, particularly for those who are able to observe court sessions during spring
break. Details and due dates for the court watching and review essay assignments will be discussed
in class and/or announced in handouts. The final exam (for those choosing that option) will be given
on Monday, May 12 at 1 p.m.
All quizzes, exams, and papers in this course must be the individual work of the student in
whose name the work is submitted. A University is a community of scholars dependent on mutual
trust. Academic dishonesty in all its forms undermines this essential attribute of a University and
cannot be tolerated. Students who feel that they might be tempted to engage in cheating, plagiarism,
providing unauthorized assistance, turning in another’s work as one’s own, sharing one’s work with
a fellow student, or any other form of academic dishonesty should drop this course immediately.
The instructor’s office is in Room 102 of the newly renovated Nasatir Hall next door to the
West Commons. Regularly scheduled office hours for this semester are listed above. If these times
are not convenient, I will be happy to make a special appointment, particularly on Friday afternoons.
To make an appointment, please see me after class or (even better) request a specific day and time
via email.
READINGS AND CLASS PARTICIPATION
Listed below are the topics to be covered and assigned readings for each week of the
semester. Each week’s assignment should be divided into roughly equal halves with the first half
completed before Monday’s class and the entire week’s assignment prior to Wednesday’s class.
Because the assigned readings will generally be the point of departure for class discussion, regular
and thoughtful preparation is vital. Even if no specific assignment is given, it is your responsibility
to review your notes and read the appropriate assignments listed on the syllabus. I encourage you to
formulate questions or comments as you read and to come to class prepared to share your
observations or questions with the class. Discussion of interesting or difficult topics may be carried
over from one week to the next.
Careful preparation will certainly be one of the keys to making this course a worthwhile
educational experience. Class discussion will generally focus on assigned readings and may also
feature discussion of current issues or events that illustrate the general themes of the course. The
class is organized on the assumption that students will attend class regularly. Barring serious illness
or unavoidable prior commitments, I see no legitimate reason for missing class. It is my intention to
begin class promptly at 2 p.m., so please make a serious effort to arrive on time. You will probably
find it useful to have the appropriate books with you in class, particularly when we discuss
interviews in Brisbin and Kilwein’s Real Law Stories or charts and tables from the textbook. Active
student participation is a crucial feature of this class. Debate is encouraged, and students are urged
to initiate discussion of topics which interest them and to ask questions at any time.
5
COURSE TOPICS AND ASSIGNED READINGS
FIRST WEEK (Jan. 22) – Course Introduction: Law and Politics in American Courts
First Week Assignment:
Before class or while waiting for class to begin, read pp. 1-4 in Carp, Stidham, and
Manning, Judicial Process in America or use your smart phone or other device to search for
information about the Supreme Court case of United States v. Alvarez (2012) on the Internet.
SECOND WEEK (Jan. 27-29) – Courts in the News
Lawyers and Their Work: Introduction to Real Law Stories
Assigned Reading:
Robert A. Carp, Ronald Stidham, and Kenneth L. Manning, Judicial Process in America (9th
ed., 2014) (Carp, Judicial Process), Chapter 1, pp. 89-90, and pp. 235-236.
David W. Neubauer, “Courts and the Legal System” (available on “Blackboard”).
U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment (Section 1) in Carp, Judicial Process,
pp. 445-449 and 452.
Erik Eckholm, “Judge in Texas Partly Rejects Abortion Law,” New York Times, Oct. 28,
2013 (“Blackboard”).
Richard Brisbin and John Kilwein, Real Law Stories: Inside the American Judicial Process
(2010) (Brisbin, Real Law Stories), pp. 1-12.
John Grisham, A Time to Kill, pp. 18-33 (“Blackboard”).
Brisbin, Real Law Stories, pp. 120-131 (Robert V. Eye).
Special Assignment for Week 2
Find a story on the Internet or in a newspaper that deals with the courts or other
aspects of law and the political system. Come to class prepared to discuss this story on
Monday, Jan. 27. Students who turn in a copy of a news story dealing with “law and courts”
(with answers to a few simple questions) on either Jan. 27 or Jan. 29 may earn up to three
points under the “contributions” heading.
Oral Reports
(If you would like to be the first person in the class to present an oral report, please
see the instructor after class to sign up for an oral report on one of the early Supreme Court
cases listed below dealing with a constitutional “right of privacy”).
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
6
THIRD WEEK (Feb. 3-5) – The Dual Court System: Federal Courts
State Courts and Judges: From California to Massachusetts
Progress Quiz # 1 – Monday, Feb. 3
Assigned Reading:
Carp, Judicial Process, Chapter 2 and pp. 75-80.
Carp, Judicial Process, Chapter 3 and pp. 80-81 (“Jurisdiction of State Courts”).
“State Trial Courts of General Jurisdiction” and “State Courts of Last Resort”
(“Blackboard”).
Brisbin, Real Law Stories, pp. 219-224.
Grisham, A Time to Kill, pp. 39-45 (“Blackboard”).
Brisbin, Real Law Stories, pp. 225-232 (Dan Hogan) and pp. 244-253 (Judge Steven King).
Contributions Credit
Students may receive one point of “contributions” credit for handing in a newspaper clipping
or printout of an Internet story dealing with law, courts, and the judicial process on
Monday, Feb. 3. Answering questions about this news story is not required.
FOURTH WEEK (Feb. 10-12) -- Lawyers, Litigants, and Interest Groups in the Judicial Process
Assigned Reading:
Carp, Judicial Process, pp. 181-196.
Brisbin, Real Law Stories, pp. 52-59 (Deborah Pascente Lifka) and pp. 73-81 (Scott Himsel).
Carp, Judicial Process, pp. 197-202 and 395-396.
Brown v. Board of Education and Bolling v. Sharpe (“Blackboard” or locate full opinions
online at a website such as www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html. (To find a
specific case on “Findlaw”, you can use the “party name search” feature).
Progress Quiz #2 – Wednesday, Feb. 12
FIFTH WEEK (Feb. 17-19) – – Judges and Elections: State Courts
Varieties of Civil Litigation
Assigned Reading:
Carp, Judicial Process, Chapter 5.
Bill Mears, “Former Justice O’Connor leads push to end judicial elections,” CNN Online,
Dec. 15, 2009 (Blackboard).
7
Brisbin, Real Law Stories, pp. 263-275 (Justice Larry V. Starcher).
“Ouster of Iowa Judges Sends Signal to Bench,” New York Times, Nov. 3, 2010
(Blackboard).
Brisbin, Real Law Stories, pp. 13-25
Carp, Judicial Process, pp. 271-282.
Brisbin, Real Law Stories, pp. 60-72 (Scott Friedman) and pp. 82-89 (Jeffrey M. Byer).
SIXTH WEEK (Feb. 24-26) – Lawyers and Civil Litigation
Resolving Civil Cases: Settlement or Trial
Assigned Reading:
Brisbin, Real Law Stories, pp. 111-119 (Linda Rice).
Carp, Judicial Process, pp. 279-281 (review) and pp. 282-291.
San Diego County Juror Handbook (“Blackboard”).
David W. Neubauer, “Traditional vs. Policy Lawsuits” (“Blackboard”).
Brisbin, Real Law Stories, pp. 27-51 (Paul Cranston and Dan Cooper).
Anne Krueger, “Jury orders dentist to pay former patient,” San Diego Union-Tribune, Nov.
22, 1997 (“Blackboard” or handout).
Progress Quiz # 3 – Wednesday, Feb. 26
SEVENTH WEEK (March 3-5) – Policy-Oriented Civil Litigation: Medical Care and Prison
Overcrowding
Assigned Reading:
Brown v. Plata (U.S. Supreme Court, 2011) -- Locate and read majority opinion online (see
www.supremecourt.gov)
FIRST MIDTERM EXAM — Wednesday, March 5
Contributions Credit
Students may receive “contributions” credit for handing in a newspaper clipping or printout
of an Internet story dealing with law and the political system on Monday, March 3.
EIGHTH WEEK (March 10-12) – Abortion Rights: Forty Years in the Courts
Justice Kennedy and “the Full and Necessary Meaning of Liberty”
Assigned Reading:
8
Roe v. Wade (1973) (Blackboard).
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) (Blackboard).
Pema Levy, “The Abortion Case the Supreme Court May Find Hard to Refuse,” Newsweek,
Jan. 16, 2014 (Blackboard).
Use Internet sources to track down arguments for and against the constitutionality of the
abortion law passed by the Texas legislature in 2013.
Supplementary Resources:
(Students who do not have roles in our simulation(s) of the Planned Parenthood litigation
challenging the constitutionality of the 2013 Texas abortion law may volunteer to
present oral reports on Supreme Court decisions dealing with abortion rights, gay
rights, and/or the interpretation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment,
particularly cases marked with an asterisk in the list below):
Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas et al. v. Abbott et al. (U.S. Supreme Court, On
Application to Vacate Stay, Nov. 19, 2013) (concurring opinion of Justice Scalia and
dissenting opinion of Justice Breyer).
Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983).
*Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986).
Thornburgh v. ACOG, 479 U.S. 809 (1986).
*Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989).
*Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, 546 U.S. 320 (2006).
*Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007).
*United States v. Windsor (2013) (supremecourt.gov).
NINTH WEEK (March 17-19) – Supreme Court Simulation
Crime and Procedure Prior to a Criminal Trial
Assigned Reading:
Carp, Judicial Process, pp. 79-80 and 27-34 (review).
“Visitor’s Guide to Oral Argument,” www.supremecourt.gov (follow “oral arguments”
link).
Brisbin, Real Law Stories, pp. 143-151 and 153-162 (Rita Peerenboom).
Carp, Judicial Process, Chapter 9.
Brisbin, Real Law Stories, pp. 163-173 (Michelle Reichenbach).
Progress Quiz # 4 – Wednesday March 19
9
TENTH WEEK (March 24-26) – The Determination of “Probable Cause”: Grand Jury vs.
Preliminary Hearing
Resolving Criminal Cases: Prosecutor Screening and Plea Bargaining
Assigned Reading:
Carp, Judicial Process, pp. 225-227 (review).
Grisham, A Time to Kill, Chapter 12 (pp. 125-139) (“Blackboard”).
Brent Schrotenboer, “Burglary case dismissed against SDSU’s Wade,” San Diego UnionTribune, Dec. 5, 2008, pp. D1 and D4 (“Blackboard”).
David W. Neubauer and Stephen S. Meinhold, “Case Attrition” and “The Criminal Justice
Wedding Cake” (“Blackboard”).
Kevin Acee, “SDSU Recruit won’t face DA sex charges,” San Diego Union-Tribune, Oct.
23, 1999, p. D6 (“Blackboard”).
“D.A. not charging Roethlisberger in assault,” April 10, 2010 (“Blackboard”).
Carp, Judicial Process, pp. 228-234 (review).
Brent Schrotenboer, “Bush (Matt, not George) to plead guilty as part of plea deal,” San
Diego Union-Tribune, June 9, 2009, p. D5 (“Blackboard”).
Brisbin, Real Law Stories, pp. 200-208 (J. Luis Guerrero).
Suggestions for Spring Break
For many students the week of spring break can be an ideal time for getting started on your
final course projects by completing courtroom observations in preparation for the
Court Watching Project or reading John Grisham’s novel A Time to Kill in
preparation for the review essay option. Either way, I believe you would find it
helpful to read pp. 241-256 in the Carp textbook before classes resume on Monday,
April 7.
ELEVENTH WEEK (April 7-9) – Prosecutors and the Processing of Criminal Cases
When Negotiations Fail: The Criminal Trial Process
Assigned Reading:
Brisbin, Real Law Stories, pp.174-190 (Traci Cook) and pp. 191-199 (David Godwin).
Carp, Judicial Process, pp. 241-256.
San Diego County Juror Handbook (“Blackboard”) (review).
Brisbin, Real Law Stories, pp. 233-241 (Judge Rick Savignano).
Progress Quiz #5 – Wednesday, April 9
Contributions Credit
10
Students may receive “contributions” credit for handing in a newspaper clipping or printout
of an Internet story dealing with law and courts on Monday, April 7.
TWELFTH WEEK (April 14-16) — After the Trial: California’s “Three Strikes Law” Goes to the
Supreme Court (and eventually to the voters)
Death Penalty: The “Bifurcated” Trial
Assigned Reading:
Carp, Judicial Process, pp. 257-266.
M. Ethan Katsh, Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Legal Issues (14th ed.), pp.
250-265 ( Is a Sentence of Life in Prison for Stealing $150 Worth of Videotapes
Constitutional?) (Blackboard).
Greg Moran, “Wave of Three-Strikes Resentencing Hearings Starts,” U-T San Diego, Feb.
24, 2013 (Blackboard).
Gregg v. Georgia (1976) (excerpts on Blackboard).
Brisbin, Real Law Stories, pp. 209-217 (Cynthia Short).
THIRTEENTH WEEK (April 21-23) – The Death Penalty in California: The Gardner Case and the
Future
Assigned Reading:
Dana Littlefield and Matthew T. Hall, “Gardner Pleads Guilty,” San Diego Union-Tribune,
April 17, 2010, pp. A1 and A11 (“Blackboard”).
SECOND MIDTERM EXAM – Wednesday, April 23
FOURTEENTH WEEK (April 28-30) – Federal Judges: Nomination and Confirmation
Policy Links: Research on Judicial Decision Making
Progress Quiz #6 – Wednesday, April 30
Assigned Reading
Carp, Judicial Process, Chapter 6.
Brisbin, Real Law Stories, pp. 254-262 (Judge Richard Stearns).
Joseph Williams, “Sotomayor confirmation breaks barriers,” Boston Globe, Aug. 7, 2009
(Blackboard).
11
“Senate Confirms Obama Nominee Under New Filibuster Rules, World Doesn’t End,”
huffingtonpost.com, Dec. 10, 2013 (Blackboard).
Carp, Judicial Process, Chapter 7 and pp. 294-310, including Table 12-1 (p. 306).
Oral Reports
Students may volunteer to give oral reports on specific individuals nominated for seats on
the lower federal courts by President Obama. Among the nominees I would
recommend are David F. Hamilton, Edward J. Davila, Mary H. Murguia, Goodwin
Liu, Paul J. Watford, Cathy Ann Bencivengo, or Jennifer A. Dorsey.
FIFTEENTH WEEK (May 5-7) – Decision Making in Appellate Courts
Conclusions and Reflections: Drugs and Crime
Assigned Reading:
Carp, Judicial Process, Chapter 13 and pp. 304-309 (review).
“Pot Dealer to do Eight Years in Prison,” U-T San Diego, Jan. 25, 2013 (Blackboard).
Greg Moran, “Case Against Ramona Couple Adds to Medical Pot Debate,” U-T San Diego,
March 24, 2013 (Blackboard).
Carp Judicial Process, Chapter 15.
Progress Quiz #7 – Wednesday, May 7 (Required)
Contributions Credit (First Monday Assignment)
Students may receive “contributions” credit for handing in a printout on Monday, May 5 of
biographical information (other than Wikipedia articles) about any of President
Obama’s nominees for seats on federal courts.
Contributions Credit (Last Chance)
Students who have not given an oral presentation during the semester have one additional
last chance to earn contributions credit by handing in a brief essay summarizing the
Senate confirmation vote on one controversial federal court nominee of President
Obama (such as David F. Hamilton, Goodwin Liu, Edward M. Chen, Patricia Millett,
Sonia Sotomayor, or Elena Kagan) and analyzing the significance of partisan
polarization in the confirmation process.
FINAL EXAM – Monday, May 12 at 1 p.m.
12