SUPREME COURT: ERAS, JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY, POLICYMAKING

Review: Judicial Philosophies LOOSE constructionis t Liberal view of the © Broader powers to the federal government Might act as an activist judicial ACTIVISM Decisions based on © + own sense of justice © is a living document that can change over time Policymakin g = okay Definition: Judicial philosophy is an individual judge’s belief about how they should interpret and apply laws (or the Constitution) judicial RESTRAINT Decisions based on © only © understood as it was originally written Policymakin g = not okay STRICT constructionis t ONE way to understand the © - “It means what it says” Framers’ intent Typically practice restraint

Review: Key Supreme Court Terms Stare decisis (Latin: "stand by the decision") is a legal phrase referring to the obligation of courts to honor past precedents. Writ of Certiorari is an order by the Court (when petitioned) directing a lower court to send up the records of a case for review Usually requires the need to interpret law or decide a Constitutional question. Amicus Curiae Briefs (Latin: “friends of the court” brief) sent once a case has been accepted by SCOTUS, sent by interested parties to give supporting or opposing arguments.

Eras of the Court Brown v. Board of Education (1954): struck down racial segregation Miranda v. Arizona (1966): granted criminal rights upon arrest (Miranda rights!) Tinker v. Des Moines (1969): promoted free speech in schools for students Warren Court ( ): Considered very liberal Roe v. Wade (1973): made abortion legal on privacy grounds United States v. Nixon (1974): limited executive privilege & presidential power Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978): legalized affirmative action Burger Court ( ) Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992): put more restrictions on getting an abortion United States v. Morrison (2000): ruled that victims of gender-motivated crime could not sue District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): increased gun ownership rights Rehnquist/Roberts Court ( /2005- present): Considered very conservative

Judicial Policymaking & Implementation Policy Making Judicial Activism is often used as a “bad word” We tend to think that overturning is activism, but … What if precedent is bad? When times have changed the SC will overrule previous decisions? Federal judges impact policy/laws, especially if they declare laws unconstitutional. Policy Implementation Decisions have legal authority, but must be implemented by other branches. President or Congress can underfund programs  lax enforcement  judicial decision then has no impact on policy Courts make a decision, but don’t say how that decision has to be carried out  slow implementation.

Brown v. Board: Implementing Population v. Consumer Population Implementing Population are people that implement the ruling in order to comply with the ruling. Congress & State Legislators -> trickles down to groups responsible for carrying out the law Implementing pop. : state legislatures, Governor Faubus, the Mayor, principal and teachers and in Little Rock's Central High School the national guard was called in by President Eisenhower to oversee implementation Consumer Population are people impacted by the law Consumer pop.: school students + parents.

 Implementing Population MUST:  Act to show they understand the decision and follow court policy.  Works best if the implementation is in the hands of a few highly visible public officials (Governor, President, etc.)  Sometimes officials can thwart this process (Governor Faubus)  Consumer Population MUST:  Be aware of the rights that the decisions grant or denies them.  Little Rock 9 were consumers of the SC decision in Brown case.