history chapter 9

• dual court system
• civil lawsuit
• 94 us district courts
• apellate jurisdiction
• 11 us court of appeals
• majority opinion
• concurring opinion
• dissenting opinion

a state and federal court system exist and operate at the same time

people seek compensation from those whom they accuse of violating contracts or causing personal injuries or property damage

• 94
• job is to handle cases concerning federal law and laws enacted by congress

review errors that occur in trial court

represents the view of majority of the judges who heard the case

judges who agree with the outcome favored by the majority but wish to present their own reasons for agreeing

express their points of disagreement with the views expressed by the majority opinion

• US supreme court shapes law for entire country
• choose on 70 to 80 cases/7000 cases
• writ of certioari
• rule of four
• attorney speak
• justices meet privately
• gains 5 or more justices win

how cases are presented to the court commands lower court to send a case forward

four justices must vote to hear a specific case

speaks for 30 minutes while justices ask questions

(9) meet privatly in their weekly conference to present their views to each other

• 9 total
• 3 women
• 6 men
• 1 aferican american
• 1 latino
• scalia most conservative
• kagen newest member
• also only one who wasnt a federal judge
• sotomayor most liberal

• aritcle 3
• marbury v madison
• adam atempt to pack the court with federalists
• james madison refused
• judiciary act of 1789
• writ of mandamus
• unconstituional

defines the authority of the judiciary

marbry was a last minute appointment by adams

rufused to deliver the commisions to marbury and several other judicial appointees

seeking a writ of mandamus

traditional leagal order through which a court directs a gov official to take a specific action required by law

marbury was entitled to commision but declined the issue becuase it was unconstitutional.

• battles in federal courts
• original intent approach
• avoid judicial activism
• flexible interpretation

in federal courts, especially those related to nomination of supreme court justices, often focus on the nominees approach to constitutional interpretation

the constitution must be interpretated in strict accordance with the original meanings intended by the people who wrote and ratified the document

judges inject their own viewpoints into constitutional interpretation

advocates of judical restraint

argue there is no way to know exactly what the constitutions authors intended

contemporary judges give meaning to those words in the light of current values and policy problems