The Supreme Court

V. Our courts work on an adversarial process: – Two sides “fight” each other with their arguments – The Plaintiff is bringing the case, saying something is wrong that needs to be fixed – The Defendant is the person, group, or organization that has done the alleged wrong thing that must now defend his/her/their actions or policies – Both sides must argue their cases in front of a judge and/or jury – Cases are usually named by the Plaintiff v. Defendant

Interpreting Laws Many times, cases begin because someone interprets a law differently than someone else or feels like their rights have been violated in some way The judges hear both sides and decide what the law was supposed to really mean The Constitution: Some cases depend on interpreting the Constitution, which means we are constantly rediscovering and reinventing its meaning New laws: Some cases simply clarify new laws

Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint Judicial Restraint – Belief that the decision of judges should be influenced only by what the Constitution says – Laws should be overturned only if they are obviously and directly unconstitutional – Judges should stick to the past decisions of previous judges (called precedent) Judicial Activism – Belief that the personal opinions and feelings of judges should influence their decisions – Laws should be overturned if the judges believe they are wrong

How does a case get to the Supreme Court? Let’s assume the case isn’t one in which the SC has original jurisdiction… Cases start at the local level, but can be appealed to a higher level If the case involves a controversial issue, an organization such as the ACLU or the NAACP might sponsor the Plaintiff to financially help The SC could accept the case or might not… beliefs of judicial activism and judicial restraint play a role here (4 of the 9 Justices have to agree to hear the case)

For example…Affirmative Action Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978): SC ruled that setting aside a specific number of spots in a college (a quota) for a specific race was unconstitutional Grutter v. Bollinger (2003): SC ruled that allowing race as a consideration in college admissions was ok as long as it wasn’t a quota Fisher v. University of Texas: the SC is looking at Affirmative Action AGAIN! – Normally, the court wouldn’t look at such a similar case again… clearly, a competent court already ruled on this issue in recent times – But NOW the court has 5 Conservatives that might exercise Judicial Activism to change social policy – One Justice (Kagan) won’t vote because she worked on the case at a lower level…so it comes down to the other 8 Justices to vote in the Spring – This could mean Affirmative Action will be dead…do you think this is good or bad? – Is it good or bad that 8 people (usually 9) get to decide this for the whole country?