- Identify and explain the organization of the Judiciary
- Identify and provide examples of the powers of the Judiciary powers.
- Identify and explain how Judiciary shares powers with the Congress, Executive, and bureaucracy.
- Discuss the implications of Judiciary sharing powers with each of the following: Congress, Executive, and bureaucracy.
- Discuss the functions that Judiciary performs.
- Identify how the power of the Judiciary has/may evolve gradually.
- Identify and discuss the ties between the Judiciary and political parties.
- Identify and discuss the ties between the Judiciary and interest groups.
- Identify and discuss the ties between the Judiciary and media.
- Identify and discuss the ties between the Judiciary and state and local governments.
- The U.S. federal judiciary is composed of three separate levels. The lowest are the 94 district courts, each state (along with D.C. and Puerto Rico) having at least one. These are general trial courts that take both criminal and civil cases. They have original jurisdiction over most cases and are not outlined in the constitution. The number of judges and the structure are set by congress. The next level is the court of appeals.They have only appellate jurisdiction and don't handle jury trial. They serve as final arbiter and set legal precedent, making them the most powerful and influential in the federal system. the judges are nominated by the president, confirmed by senate and the number of judges is decided by congress. The highest court, as indicated by its name, is the Supreme Court of the United States. It has 9 judges that serve life tenure. It is ruled by seniority, being led by the chief justice. It is mainly an appellate court, only having original jurisdiction on cases between two states.
- The main power that the judiciary has is its power to declare laws or actions unconstitutional. This is also its main check on the other branches because it ensures that they are following the guidelines in the constitution, an action called judicial review. This is a concept that was created by the case Marbury v. Madison. They choose what goes on the docket and can only work with cases that are based on wrongs against the federal (not state) constitutions. Overall, the courts' job is to interpret the constitution and determine how it applies to different situations. They don't make any legislation, just ensure it is being implemented.
- The judiciary works with the other branches to ensure that all laws that congress is passing and treaties that the president is passing are up to par constitutionally. The power of the judiciary is, in all honest, limited since their main focus is to interpret the constitution and ensure it is being upheld. The only time this isn't the case is when judges participate in judicial activism which means they will view the constitution as an evolving document that is open for some stretching of ideas. This causes the judges to influence their decisions through their own political ideology, similarly to how those serving in the other branches do. Another example of overlapping powers is if a case goes before the court, interest groups can file briefs even if they are not directly part of a case. Also, if the bureaucracy, since they are in charge of implementing, does something wrong, they can be brought to trial.
- In short, the branches are closely related and still influence each other even though they are preforming checks and balances at the same time. By sharing with congress, they are able to check their laws that are put through to ensure they are constitutional (if they aren't, congress can make amendments) and the judiciary can hear the voice of the people (citizens will often call their senators if they dislike what a judge is doing). The president appoints the judges (senate approves his nominations) so he had influence on which judges are on the bench, but once appointed their only check back on the president is to make sure his treaties are appropriate. This is similar to the bureaucracy as well because they have have few limits on each other.
- The judiciary is used to run trials. When someone loses in a lower court, depending on their case, they can file a petition for a writ of certiorari which is where the supreme court process begins. While reviewing these petitions, if at least 4 of the 9 judges choose to hear the case they will put it on the docket. The court reads the briefs and then hears the oral argument which the chief justice presides over. Each side usually gets 30 minutes and judges can ask questions for clarification at any time. After this a conference is held on friday, where, by seniority, judges explain their stance on the case. Then, beginning with the most junior member, they take a tentative votes which helps them to establish what kind of opinion they are going to write. Then, one of the member is assigned to write it, after which it is released to the public. The opinion is often the most important part because it helps them to clarify their argument through writing, as well as create precedent that can be referred back to when needed for future cases.
- When America was first founded the main issues were separation of state and federal right and establishing the legitimacy of the new federal government, national supremacy and judicial review. After the civil war, the court was relied upon to monitor the relationship between the government and big business and ensure that civil liberties were being upheld. There was conflict over the 14th amendment during civil war reconstruction. The courts during this time had two main problems. FDR tried his court packing scheme by suggesting that judges over 70 be replaced (it was rejected). Also, many decisions were inconsistent with each other due to the increased work load from industrialization and growth of the federal government. Later on, during WWI and the Red Scare there was congressional reappointment and a "devolution revolution". This time to the present, the judges have had to focus on the conflict between personal liberty and social equality.
- Before the president's judicial nominations are confirmed, the senate will interview people and do a litmus test. This is used to find the stance of the judges on different issues (mainly polizaried issues like aborition, gay marriage, etc.). Not only does that evaluate the political party they are in but it shows whether they imploy judicial restraint or judicial activism. Often, if judges are of the opposite party to the president and considering retiring, they will hold out until a new president is elected of their party so the person that replaces them will have the same ideologies. Also, the president will not choose an extremist from either party because they will not likely get confirmed so he will choose someone who is more moderate but leans to one side.
- The main tie between the interest group and the judiciary is when those from an interest group submit briefs to support (or oppose) a case. Other than that, those that are in interest groups can contact their senator if they disapprove of the judges being confirmed or already on the bench since their senator make have some leverage in causing change.
- Once a case is decided, the court releases the opinion to the media who try to immediately read through the information and broadcast it to their viewers. Unfortuneatly, since this exchange happens so quickly, the news netorks end up giving out fasle information just to say that they were the first to get the information out to the public. In this new age of social media, judges often have Twitters and other accounts. These are important because this interaction with the public helps to foster trust toward these judges that are often lacking because they are appointed instead of elected by the citizens.
- The federal judiciary is often disconnected from the state and local governments because the only focus of the supreme court is to uphold the federal, not state, constitution. Often, though, the federal judiciary sets the precedent for civil rights cases that is closely followed by the states to uphold unalienable rights. The supreme court is the final arbiter and therefore has superiority over the local and state governments. The only time with the federal judiciary directly interacts with the states is when it oversees a trial between two states to prevent bias, or the use of laws that aren't identical between the two states.