Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

9 The Judiciary Larry Downing/Landov

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "9 The Judiciary Larry Downing/Landov"— Presentation transcript:

1 9 The Judiciary Larry Downing/Landov
The final word on interpretation of the Constitution is up to the nine members of the Supreme Court. How the Constitution is interpreted depends upon the policy preferences of the individual justices. As you will see in this chapter on the judiciary, liberal and conservative justices interpret the Constitution in very different ways. Larry Downing/Landov

2 9 Learning Objectives In this chapter, we will learn about the federal judicial system. We will begin by identifying the basic elements of the judicial system and the major players in it. Next we will outline its structure and components. Then we discover how judges obtain their jobs and assess the impact of their backgrounds on their decision making. We will also learn how the courts are policymakers and the impact their decisions have on public policy. Trace the development of the federal judiciary and the origins of judicial review. 9.1 Explain the organization of the federal court system. 9.2

3 9 Learning Objectives Outline the criteria and process used to select federal court judges. 9.3 Evaluate the Supreme Court's process for accepting, hearing, and deciding cases. 9.4

4 9 Learning Objectives Analyze the factors that influence judicial decision making. 9.5 Assess the role of the Supreme Court in the policy-making process. 9.6

5 Roots of the Federal Judiciary
9.1 Roots of the Federal Judiciary In 1787, when writing The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the judiciary would be "the least dangerous" branch of government. In fact, when the seat of national government was moved to Washington, D.C. in 1800, Congress forgot to include space for the Supreme Court in the Capitol Building; ultimately a room was found for the "inconsequential" Supreme Court in the basement. Today, the role of the courts, and particularly that of the Supreme Court of the United States, differs significantly from what the Framers envisioned. The "least dangerous branch" now is perceived by many people as having too much power. Courts have two types of jurisdiction: original and appellate. Original refers to a court's authority to hear disputes as a trial court. For example, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases involving state governments or public officials. Appellate refers to a court's ability to review and revise cases already decided by a trial court. The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction in all other cases. The Supreme Court functions as the appellate court of last resort. In this section, we will look at the early organization of the federal judiciary and the first important cases heard by the Supreme Court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 and the Creation of the Federal Judicial System The Marshall Court: Marbury v. Madison (1803) and Judicial Review

6 9.1 TABLE 9.1 What kinds of cases does the U.S. Supreme Court hear?
This table shows the different types of cases over which the Supreme Court has jurisdiction as initially specified in the Constitution.

7 The Judiciary Act of 1789 and Creation of the Federal Judiciary
9.1 The Judiciary Act of 1789 and Creation of the Federal Judiciary In spite of the Framers' intentions, the pervasive role of politics in the judicial branch quickly became evident with the passage of the Judiciary Act of Congress spent nearly the entire second half of its first session deliberating the various provisions of the act to give form and substance to the federal judiciary. The Judiciary Act of 1789 established the basic three-tiered structure of the federal court system. At the bottom were the federal district courts—at least one in each state. If people participating in a lawsuit (called litigants) were unhappy with the district court's verdict, they could appeal their case to the circuit courts, constituting the second tier. The third tier of the federal judicial system defined by the Judiciary Act of 1789 was the Supreme Court of the United States. Although the Constitution mentions the Supreme Court, it does not specify how many people should serve on it. Originally there were six members, then five, and then in 1869 it was permanently fixed at nine. Hampered by frequent changes in personnel, limited space for its operations, no clerical support, and no system of reporting its decisions, the early Court did not impress many people. Three-tiered Court Structure Federal District Court Circuit Courts (Courts of Appeal) Supreme Court Rocky beginning for Supreme Court

8 The Marshall Court: Marbury v. Madison (1803) and Judicial Review
9.1 The Marshall Court: Marbury v. Madison (1803) and Judicial Review The evolution of the Supreme Court's role has resulted in large part through the leadership of some of the justices who have served. John Marshall, who headed the court from 1801 to 1835, is considered the most important of all the justices. Marshall established the practice of having the Court deliver opinions as one voice, rather than having each justice write his own. The Marshall Court also established the supremacy of the federal government and Congress over state governments through a broad interpretation of the necessary and proper clause in McCulloch v. Maryland. Perhaps most importantly, the Marshall Court claimed the right of judicial review, the power of the court to review the acts of other branches of government and the states for constitutionality, in a case called Marbury v. Madison. John Marshall's tenure: 1801–1835 Opinions from the Court, rather than individual justices McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Broad interpretation of "necessary and proper" clause Marbury v. Madison (1803) Established Judicial Review

9 Why is John Marshall important to the development of judicial authority?
9.1 A single person can make a major difference in the development of an institution. Such was the case with John Marshall (1755–1835), who dominated the Supreme Court during his 34 years as chief justice. More of a politician than a lawyer, Marshall served as a delegate to the Virginia legislature and played an instrumental role in Virginia's ratification of the U.S. Constitution in He became secretary of state in 1800 under John Adams. When Oliver Ellsworth resigned as chief justice of the United States in 1800, Adams nominated Marshall. Marshall served on the Court until the day he died, participating in more than 1,000 decisions and authoring more than 500 opinions. Boston Athenaeum

10 9.1 What did the case Marbury v.
Madison establish? Let's see what you have learned about the early Court by answering this brief question. The importance of the "necessary and proper" clause The three-tiered federal court structure The authority of judicial review The number of justices on the Supreme Court

11 9.1 What did the case Marbury v.
Madison establish? Marbury v. Madison, decided in 1803 under the Marshall Court, established the authority of the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of actions of states and the federal government. The importance of the "necessary and proper" clause The three-tiered federal court structure The authority of judicial review The number of justices on the Supreme Court

12 The Federal Court System
9.2 The Federal Court System The judicial system in the United States can best be described as a dual system consisting of the federal court system and the judicial systems of the fifty states. As we will discuss in more detail in this section, both systems are basically three-tiered. At the bottom of the system are trial courts, where litigation begins. In the middle are appellate courts, which generally review only findings of law made by trial courts. At the top of both the federal and state court systems sits the court of last resort. In the federal court system, trial courts are called district courts, appellate courts are termed courts of appeals, and the court of last resort is the Supreme Court. The District Courts The Courts of Appeals The Supreme Court

13 9.2 FIGURE 9.1 How is the American Judicial System Structured?
The American judicial system is a dual system consisting of the federal court system and the judicial systems of the 50 states. In both the federal court system and the judiciaries of most states, there are both trial and appellate courts. The U.S. Supreme Court sits at the top of both court systems and has the power to hear appeals from both federal and state courts, as long as they involve a federal question.

14 The District Courts 9.2 Each state has at least one Jurisdiction
Congress created the U.S. District Courts when it enacted the Judiciary Act of District courts are federal trial courts. Right now we have 94. Each state has at least one, and the most populous states, California, Texas, and New York, each have four. Cases which are heard in the federal district courts generally fall into one of three categories: 1) They involve the federal government as a party; 2) they present a federal question based on a claim under the U.S. Constitution, a treaty with another nation, or a federal statute; or 3) they involve civil suits in which citizens are from different states and the amount of money involved is more than $75,000. Each federal judicial district has a U.S. Attorney General, who is nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Each state has at least one More populous states have more Jurisdiction Must involve federal or multi-state issue U.S. Attorney General Nominated by president; confirmed by Senate

15 9.2 FIGURE 9.2 What are the boundaries of
federal district courts and courts of appeals? This map shows the location of each U.S. court of appeals and the boundaries of the federal district courts in states with more than one district. Note that there are 11 numbered and two unnumbered courts of appeals. There are also 94 district courts. States are divided into between one and four districts; no district court crosses state lines.

16 The Courts of Appeals 9.2 Eleven Courts of Appeals
There are currently 11 numbered courts of appeals. A twelfth handles most appeals involving federal regulatory commissions and agencies including, for example, the National Labor Relations Board. A thirteenth is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which deals with patents and contracts and financial claims against the federal government. The number of judges within each court of appeals varies depending on the workload and complexity of the cases. It can range from six judges to nearly 30. In deciding cases, judges are divided into rotating panels of three judges. The courts of appeals have no original jurisdiction. They hear appeals from criminal and civil cases, and appeals from administrative agencies. In general, courts of appeals try to correct errors of law and procedure. They hear no new testimony. Eleven Courts of Appeals A twelfth is restricted to federal regulatory commissions and a thirteenth to patents Number of judges varies Depends on workload and complexity No original jurisdiction No new testimony

17 The Supreme Court 9.2 Jurisdiction Members Precedent
Sometimes cases reviewed by the Supreme Court involve highly controversial issues. The Court hears only cases from U.S. Courts of Appeal and those from state supreme courts and other courts of last resort. Since 1869, there have been eight associate justices and one chief justice who serve on the court. Each has four clerks, and the entire court employs just 400 staff members. Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are extremely important because they are binding throughout the entire country and establish national precedents, or rules for settling subsequent cases of similar nature. The practice of adhering to precedent when deciding cases is called stare decisis. Who can translate this Latin phrase for us? Jurisdiction Reviews cases from U.S. Courts of Appeal and state supreme courts Members Eight associate justices and one chief justice Precedent Rules are binding throughout the nation. Stare decisis

18 9.2 Which conditions must be met
before a case may be heard in federal district court? Before we move on to judicial selection, let's answer a multiple-choice question about federal appeals. It must involve the federal government as a party. It must present a federal question based on a claim under the U.S. Constitution. Both A and B Either A or B

19 9.2 Which conditions must be met
before a case may be heard in federal district court? Cases heard by the federal district courts general fall into either one of these categories. It must involve the federal government as a party. It must present a federal question based on a claim under the U.S. Constitution. Both A and B Either A or B

20 How Federal Court Judges Are Selected
9.3 How Federal Court Judges Are Selected The selection of federal judges is often a highly political process with important political ramifications because the president must nominate judges and the U.S. Senate must confirm them. Presidents, in general, try to select well-qualified men and women for the bench. But, these appointments also provide a president with the opportunity to put his philosophical stamp on the federal courts. In this section we will discuss who are the judges, what are the nomination criteria, and what the appointment and confirmation process looks like. Who Are Federal Judges? Nomination Criteria The Confirmation Process Appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court

21 9.3 TABLE 9.2 How does a president affect the federal judiciary?
This table shows how many judges presidents from Carter to Obama have appointed to the federal courts. Source: "Imprints on the Bench," CQ Weekly Report (January 19, 2001): 173. Reprinted by permission of Copyright Clearance Center on behalf of Congressional Quarterly, Inc. Updated by authors. Obama data from Senate Judiciary Committee, and nominations/111thCongress.cfm.

22 Who Are Federal Judges? 9.3 Background
Typically, federal district court judges have held other political offices, such as state court judge or prosecutor. Most have been involved in politics, which is what usually brings them into consideration for a position on the federal bench. Griffin Bell, a former federal court of appeals judge (who later became U.S. attorney general in the Carter administration), once remarked, "For me, becoming a federal judge wasn't very difficult. I managed John F. Kennedy's presidential campaign in Georgia." White males continue to dominate the federal courts, but since the 1970s, most presidents have pledged (with varying degrees of success) to do their best to appoint more African Americans, Hispanics, women, and other underrepresented groups to the federal bench. Background Generally have held other judicial jobs Active in politics Diversity growing

23 Nomination Criteria 9.3 Experience Ideology or Policy Preferences
When a president has a vacancy to fill on a federal court, six criteria tend to stick out as most important when he considers a nominee: experience, ideology, rewards, pursuit of political support, religion, and race, ethnicity, and gender. Most nominees have had at least some judicial, legal, or governmental experience. For example, in 2014, all nine sitting Supreme Court justices but one—former Solicitor General Elena Kagan—had prior judicial experience. When it comes to ideology, most presidents also seek to appoint individuals who share their policy preferences, and almost all have political goals in mind when they appoint a judge or justice. Many of those appointed to the judiciary have been personal friends or supporters of the president. Some presidents use their nominees to garner political support, especially from groups that have not shown a strong liking of the president. For example, President Ronald Reagan pledged during his 1980 campaign to nominate the first woman to the Supreme Court. Through late 2014, of the more than 100 justices who have served on the Court, almost all have been members of traditional Protestant faiths. Fewer than 15 have been Roman Catholic, and fewer than ten have been Jewish. Today, more Catholics serve on the Court than at any other point in history. Three Jewish justices round out the Court. At one time, no one could have imagined that Catholics would someday make up a majority of the Court, or that the Court would have no members of any Protestant faiths. Experience Ideology or Policy Preferences Rewards Pursuit of Political Support Religion Race, Ethnicity, and Gender

24 9.3 TABLE 9.3 Who are the Justices of the Supreme Court in 2014?
This table gives us some background on each of the Supreme Court justices serving in 2012.

25 The Confirmation Process and Appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court
9.3 The Confirmation Process and Appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court Before a president announces a nomination, especially to the Supreme Court, the White House staff begin an investigation into the personal and professional backgrounds of potential nominees. Names are given to the FBI and the American Bar Association (ABA) for vetting, review, and, in the case of the ABA, a rating. Once the nominee has been announced, the Senate Judiciary Committee starts its own investigation, which includes asking nominees to fill out a lengthy questionnaire. The committee holds its own hearings before the matter comes to the Senate for a vote. During this process, interest groups may become very active, especially for Supreme Court nominations. In 1987, liberal groups launched a campaign against Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork. They objected to his firing of the Watergate special prosecutor when he was solicitor general under President Richard Nixon, and to his extreme conservative views. The Senate rejected his nomination by a 42–58 vote. Investigation Personal and professional background Lobbying by Interest Groups They do not stay silent Senate Committee Hearings and Senate Vote

26 9.3 TABLE How Many Interest Groups Submit Testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee? This table shows how many interest groups submitted testimony concerning Supreme Court nominees before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Source: Amy Harder and Charlie Szymanski, "Sotomayor in Context: Unprecedented Input from Interest Groups," National Journal (August 5, 2009), ninthjustice.nationaljournal.com/2009/08/sotomayor-in-context-recordbre.php. Updated by the authors.

27 9.3 What role does the Senate Judiciary Committee play in the judicial nomination process? The Senate Judiciary Committee plays an important role in the process of advice and consent on presidential nominees to the judiciary. As part of this process, they hold confirmation hearings where potential justices appear before the committee. Here, Clarence Thomas testifies before the committee following his nomination in He was subsequently confirmed to serve on the Supreme Court. John Duricka/AP Images

28 9.3 What is the first step in the Supreme Court appointment process?
Let's see what you've learned about the judicial appointment process. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing President's announcement of nominee American Bar Association's rating White House review of personal and professional background

29 9.3 What is the first step in the Supreme Court appointment process?
Of those listed, this is the first step. Then the ABA review, then the announcement, then the Senate Judiciary committee investigation Senate Judiciary Committee hearing President's announcement of nominee American Bar Association's rating White House review of personal and professional background

30 The Supreme Court Today
9.4 The Supreme Court Today Despite the tremendous power and influence the Supreme Court has over the policy and laws that affect Americans' lives, very few Americans have any real depth of knowledge about the Court. This may be due in large part to lack of interest, but the Court itself has taken great pains to maintain privacy and decorum. It does not televise hearings, for example, and utmost secrecy surrounds the deliberation process. In this section we will discuss how the Supreme Court decides to hear a case, and what happens next. Deciding to Hear a Case How Does a Case Survive the Process? Hearing and Deciding the Case

31 9.4 TABLE 9.5 Can Americans Name the Justices of the Supreme Court?
Very few Americans can name a justice of the Supreme Court. This table shows exactly how few. Source: © 2012 Findlaw & Thomson Reuters business.

32 9.4 FIGURE 9.3 How Many Cases Does the Supreme Court Handle?
The modern Supreme Court is asked to hear over 7,500 cases per year (represented by orange bars); of these cases, it reaches a final decision in about one percent, or 80 cases (represented by red bars). This is about half of the total number of decisions the Court handed down 20 years ago. Source: Administrative Office of the Courts; Supreme Court Public Information Office.

33 Deciding to Hear a Case 9.4 Writs of Certiorari and the Rule of Four
More than 7,500 cases are filed at the Supreme Court each term; approximately 80 cases are orally argued and decided. As you can see, only a fraction of cases requesting Supreme Court review are ever considered. [PREVIOUS NOTE STATED 7,000 / 75 CASES ?] The Supreme Court controls its own caseload, deciding which cases it wants to hear and rejecting the rest. Litigants wanting their case to be heard send a petition for a writ of certiorari (Latin for "to be informed") to the Supreme Court, requesting a review of a lower court's ruling. Those petitions are sent first to the chief justice, and then to the other justices. Under the "Rule of Four," a case will get a hearing if at least four justices agree. The Clerks of the Supreme Court are very important in this process. They generally graduate at the top of their class from top law schools. They review cases and make recommendations to their bosses. Since the Court started hiring more clerks for each justice, the length of opinions has increased as well. Writs of Certiorari and the Rule of Four Cases must come from from U.S. Courts of appeals or other courts of last resort. Cases must involve a federal question. Role of Clerks

34 9.4 FIGURE 9.4 How Does a Case Get to the Supreme Court?
This figure illustrates both how cases get on the Court's docket and what happens after a case is accepted for review. A case may take several years to wind its way through the federal judiciary and another year or two to be heard and decided by the Supreme Court, if the justices decide to grant certiorari.

35 9.4 Why are Supreme Court clerkships important?
Supreme Court clerkships are awarded to a small number of elite law school graduates each year. In addition to providing valuable experience at the Court, clerkships can open doors to opportunities in government and private practice. Justice Elena Kagan (right, seated with former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor) served as a law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall. She later went on to serve as White House counsel, Harvard Law School dean, solicitor general, and, ultimately, Supreme Court justice. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

36 How Does a Case Survive the Process?
9.4 How Does a Case Survive the Process? So which cases tend to get a hearing? Among the cues are the following: •The federal government is the party asking for review. •The case involves conflict among the courts of appeals. •The case presents a civil rights or civil liberties question. •The case involves the ideological or policy preferences of the justices. •The case has significant social or political interest, as evidenced by the presence of interest group amicus curiae briefs. Federal Government The Solicitor General Conflicts Among the Courts of Appeal Different interpretations Interest Group Participation Important social issues

37 TABLE 9.6 Which Groups Participated as Amicus Curiae in Citizens United v. FEC (2010)?
9.4 This table shows the different groups that participated in the controversial Citizens United v. FEC case in 2010.

38 Hearing and Deciding the Case
9.4 Hearing and Deciding the Case After the Court accepts a case and each side has submitted briefs and amicus briefs, the oral arguments begin. Generally, attorneys are given half an hour to argue their case, including time required to answer questions from the bench. Court observers have tried to predict the ruling of a case based on justices' questions, but that is an imperfect art. After arguments, the justices meet behind closed doors twice a week. They start each conference with a handshake. The chief justice begins the discussion of the case, and each justice speaks in order of seniority. Discussions are followed by a vote on the case. Once a decision has been made, the opinion must be written. If the chief justice is in the majority, he will assign a justice to write the majority opinion. The opinion is important because it sets out the legal reasoning justifying the decision, and this legal reasoning becomes a precedent for deciding future cases. Justices who disagree with the majority may write a dissenting opinion. Justices who agree with the vote but not the reasoning may submit a concurring opinion. Oral Arguments Questions asked and answered The Conference and the Vote Closed conferences twice a week Writing Opinions Dissenting opinions

39 9.4 Interest groups often participate
in Supreme Court cases via this process. What have you learned about how cases are decided by the Supreme Court? Please answer this brief question. Writ of Certiori Amicus Curiae Appeals to the Solicitor General Launching a public interest campaign

40 9.4 Interest groups often participate
in Supreme Court cases via this process. This means "friend of the court" and submitting a brief signals a group's interest in a case. Writ of Certiori Amicus Curiae Appeals to the Solicitor General Launching a public interest campaign

41 Judicial Philosophy and Decision Making
9.5 Judicial Philosophy and Decision Making Justices do not make decisions in a vacuum. They must follow the law of previous cases. But, as we will discover in this section, other legal and "extra-legal" factors can be observed in Supreme Court decision making. Those include justices' philosophy and ideology, public opinion, and what the original intent of the Framers is presumed to have been. Judicial Philosophy, Original Intent, and Ideology Public Opinion

42 Judicial Philosophy, Original Intent, and Ideology
9.5 Judicial Philosophy, Original Intent, and Ideology One of the primary issues concerning judicial decision-making focuses on what is called the activism/restraint debate. Advocates of judicial restraint argue that courts should allow the decisions of other branches of government to stand, even when they offend a judge's own principles. Because judges are not elected, they should leave policy making to the elected branches. Judicial activism is the opposite: justices help create public policy through their decisions. The case Roe v. Wade, which liberalized abortion laws, is considered an example of judicial activism. Those who support judicial restraint tend to agree that justices should be strict constructionists. In other words, justices should interpret the Constitution as the Framers wrote and originally intended it. As we will see, this is not realistically possible today. Activity: Describe a case, either using a real case or a hypothetical one, perhaps associated with some local or national news headline. Split the class into two sections and assign one as an activist court, the other as a court practicing judicial restraint. Each group is to make a decision on the described case, using only those qualities associated with its assigned method of reaching decisions. How do the outcomes compare? Judicial philosophy and ideology Judicial restraint Judicial activism Strict constructionism

43 Public Opinion 9.5 Can check the power of the courts
Activist periods May consider public opinion when issuing rulings Korematsu v. U.S. (1944) Public confidence in Court Has ebbed and flowed The relationship between the Supreme Court and public opinion can seem like a moving target. At times the Court appears to have heeded the call of public opinion, such as when, in 1936, it reversed many of its earlier decisions that had blocked President F. Roosevelt's New Deal programs. But at times of war and other emergencies, the Supreme Court has decided cases that seemed to favor public opinion over constitutional principles. In Korematsu v. U.S., the Court seemed to bend to public fears during World War II when it upheld the clearly unconstitutional internment of Japanese Americans. Perhaps as a result of these actions, public confidence in the court has varied throughout its history.

44 9.5 TABLE Do Supreme Court Decisions Align with the views of the American Public? This table gives an example of the nexus of certain Court cases with public opinion. Source: Lexis-Nexis RPOLL.

45 9.5 Supporters of this philosophy
argue that the courts should stay away from policy-making. Before we move on to the last section of this chapter, please answer this multiple-choice question about judicial philosophy. Strict constructionism Judicial activism Judicial restraint All of the above

46 9.5 Supporters of this philosophy
argue that the courts should stay away from policy-making. Supporter of this philosophy say the courts should leave standing the policy actions of other branches of government, even if they violate the Constitution. Strict constructionism Judicial activism Judicial restraint All of the above

47 Toward Reform: Power, Policy Making, and the Court
9.6 Toward Reform: Power, Policy Making, and the Court Many political scientists argue that all judges, whether they recognize it or not, make policy. The decisions of the Supreme Court especially have a great impact on American politics and policy. In this section, we will examine those impacts. Policy Making Implementing Court Decisions

48 Policy Making 9.6 Civil rights issues Authority of the Court
While elected officials keep a close eye on the wishes of their constituents, it is safe to say that many policies we take for granted in the United States would not have come about without the support of the Supreme Court. These include the right to privacy and equal rights for women, African Americans, Hispanics, gays and lesbians, and other minority groups. The Court has also helped set public policy in regards to its own authority. The Warren Court helped broaden the role of the Court as a public policy maker through its recognition of civil rights, and the Marshall court did the same through its claim of judicial review. Civil rights issues Right to privacy Equal rights for women, African Americans, and other minorities Authority of the Court

49 9.6 Do unpopular Supreme Court rulings threaten the nation?
The Warren Court's broad expansions of civil and political rights led to a great deal of criticism, including a movement to impeach the chief justice. Here, two California billboards present contrasting views of Warren's performance. Bettmann/Corbis

50 Implementing Court Decisions
9.6 Implementing Court Decisions Once the court has ruled—especially if it has reversed an earlier court decision or an action by a branch of government—policy must follow in order to implement the decision. This is called judicial implementation. In considering judicial implementation, policy makers must be aware of the implementing population—those responsible for carrying out the decision, such as lawyers, judges, public officials, government agencies—and the consumer population. Those are people who might be directly affected by a decision. Before judicial implementation can be carried out, the following must first be determined: does the implementing population understand the ruling? Will the implementing population actually follow the ruling? Is the consumer population aware of the rights that the decision grants or denies them? Judicial implementation How judicial decisions are translated into public policies Implementing population Those responsible for carrying out the decision Consumer population Those directly affected by the decision

51 9.6 These are the people who are
directly affected by a judicial ruling We just covered the term for this question. The correct choice represents the population that needs to know the rights that a Court decision grants or denies them. What is the correct choice? Consumer population Implementing population Interest group population Judicial population

52 9.6 These are the people who are
directly affected by a judicial ruling These are the people who are directly affected by a court ruling. Consumer population Implementing population Interest group population Judicial population

53 9 Discussion Questions What role do the courts play in policy making?
Should public opinion be considered when the judiciary makes policy decisions? What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of judicial activism?

54 9 Further Review Listen to the Chapter Study and Review the Flashcards
Study and Review the Practice Tests


Download ppt "9 The Judiciary Larry Downing/Landov"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google