Blog #5

Explain why you answered each accordingly. You may help each other through these questions, and use the internet or book resources.

1. A Supreme Court that demonstrates a willingness to change public policy and alter judicial precedent is said to be engaging in

a) judicial activism
b) due process
c) judicial restraint
d) ex post facto lawmaking
e) judicial review

The correct answer is a) judicial activism because judicial activism involves the Supreme Court becoming involved and changing precedent.

2. A writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court indicates that the Court

a) Will review a lower decision

b) Has rendered a decision on a case

c) Has decided not to hear an appeal

d) Will recess until the end of the calendar year

e) Plans to overturn one of its previous rulings

The correct answer is a) will review a lower decision.  A writ of certiorari is a common law writ issued by a superior court to one of inferior jurisdiction demanding the record of a particular case.

3. The Supreme Court holds original jurisdiction in all of the following types of cases EXCEPT

a) If the United States is a party in the case

b) In controversies in criminal law between a citizen and a state

c) In controversies under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties

d) if a case is between citizens of different states

e) If cases arise under admiralty and maritime laws

The correct answer is b) in controversies in criminal law between a citizen and a state.  

4. All of the following are specifically mentioned in the Constitution EXCEPT

a) judicial review

b) the national census

c) rules of impeachment

d) the State of the Union address

e) length of term if federal judgeships

The correct answer is a) judicial review.  Judicial review is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, but is more of a key check of powers on the legislative and executive branch by the judicial branch.

5. Which of the following correctly states the relationship between the federal and state judiciaries?

a) Federal courts are higher courts than state courts and may overturn state decisions on any grounds.

b)The two are entirely autonomous, and neither ever hears cases that originate in the other.

c) The two are generally autonomous, although federal courts may rule on the constitutionality of state court decisions.

d) State courts are trial courts; federal courts are appeals courts.

e) State courts try all cases except those that involve conflicts between two states, which are tried in federal courts.

The correct answer is c) the two are generally autonomous, federal courts may rule on the constitutionality of state court decisions.  They are overall independent of each other, but the Supreme Court has the final say/interpretation of the Constitution on all cases.

Blog #4

Blog #4: Pick 3 cases from the previous list. For each case: - Explain the holding and majority opinion (and notable dissent - Explain what judicial philosophy is reflected - Evaluate the context of the decision with the framework of your own beliefs (e.g. if you select Roe v. Wade, explain your position on abortion.)

In the Plessy v Ferguson case, the Supreme Court ruled that "separate but equal" facilities were constitutional.  The majority opinion (6 to 3) was lead by Tom Clark and dissent by John Harlan. The unanimous decision had a majority opinion of 7 to 1 vote where the majority opinion was written by Justice Henry Billings Brown an a dissent by John Harlan. The judge used judicial activism and enacted social and political change about the nation. I think that "separate but equal" facilities is unconstitutional because although the facilities may be equal, people still do not have free choice.

In the Brown v Board of Education case, the Supreme Court ruled that schools must be integrated.  Segregation violates the 14th Amendment.  The unanimous decision had a majority opinion of 9 to 0 vote.  The Court used judicial activism because this changed the precedent for schools across the nation.  I think that segregation was unconstitutional because it takes away a persons natural rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

In the Roe v Wade case, the Supreme Court case ruled that it is a crime to aid a woman in receiving an abortion and a woman has the right to privacy under their due process rights.
The court ruling was 7 to 2, where the majority opinion was lead by Harry Blackmun and a dissent by Byron White. I think that abortion is technically unconstitutional because again, it violates the natural right to life. But personally I think that abortion is okay as long as the baby, or fetus, does not feel physical pain.

Blog #3

Refer to the cartoon posted here. Identify the point of view of the cartoonist. Do you agree or disagree with it? Explain your position, using Supreme Court cases to illustrate your argument. "Do you ever have one of those days when everything seems unconstitutional?"

The cartoonist is portraying the Supreme Court as selfish and uncaring of others.  They will deem something unconstitutional because it's just "one of those days" and because they feel like it.  The Supreme Court doesn't really give a lot of thought into some cases.  The cartoonist makes it seem like the judges aren't very qualified or professional, which can be true because technically there really aren't any qualifications to become Federal judges.  One example of the Supreme Court's indifference is the Scottsboro Boys Trial.  In 1931, nine black boys in Alabama were accused of raping two white women.  The youngest of the boys, who was 13 years old, was accused of rape and found guilty and was sentenced to death.  The boys did not have a strong representation in court and the trials were rushed.  Afterwards, the two women admitted to lying about being raped.  I think that the jury knew what their verdict would be before they even heard the defense's arguments and evidence.  I agree that the Supreme Court can be uncaring and unfair but I also think it depends on the time period and the circumstances.  The Scottsboro case took place in a time when there was a lot of inequality in America and blacks discriminated and treated like they were the inferior race.  This was a time when white people had all the power.  In government, the whites ruled and because Congress appoints federal judges, the judges were all white and supported Congress's ideas.  This is still a flaw today.  The fact that only Congress has the power to appoint judges makes it so that the judges closely follow the governments beliefs and that can make it so there is unequal representation in the Supreme Court.

Blog entry #2

What are the judicial powers of the US Supreme Court and where does this power come from (specific documents)? (reference Reading)

Article III, Section I of the Constitution states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."  Article III, Section II of the Constitution gives the US Supreme Court the power to settle controversies between a state and citizens of another state, between two or more states, between citizens of different states, and between citizens of the same states claiming lands under grants in different states.  They take care of cases in which the United States is a party, and cases arising under the Constitution and laws or treaties of the United States.  The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the U.S. Constitution.  

I am a senior in high school, and am in AP Government.  This is my first time using a blog.  It seems like it's very similar to a journal where I would record my thoughts and opinions and reactions.  But I think a blog is easier just because it's easier to type and get down my thoughts faster.  It looks like there are a lot of options to make my posts different; adding links, pictures, videos, and changing the font.  I am wondering if anyone can see this and if I will be able to look at other student's posts in class.