Unit IV “Institutions” Review: Chapter #16 – The Federal Courts | Kautzman's AP GO PO Blog

Unit IV “Institutions” Review: Chapter #16 – The Federal Courts

Assignment: Ask a question that you need assistance with and answer a question submitted by another student for each chapter in Unit IV.

Published in:

Institutions

on February 15, 2009 at 5:41 pm Comments (78)

Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

78 Comments Leave a comment.

on February 24, 2009 at 6:55 pm Kathrine Kruse Said:

What is an example of a Per Curiam Decision?
on February 24, 2009 at 9:08 pm Cole Ziegler Said:

In what instances do cases automatically go to federal court (besides between two states or between a state and a foreign nation)?

What is the most prominent qualification to have to be a judge and why?
on February 26, 2009 at 3:47 pm Haley Nelson Said:

What are two important influences when the President is choosing appointees to the Supreme Court?

What is Judicial Activism? Give one Example.
on February 26, 2009 at 5:15 pm Rachel Kerr Said:

Define judicial implementation. In addition, briefly describe the idea of the interpreting population, the implementing population, and the consumer population.
on February 26, 2009 at 5:31 pm Rachel Kerr Said:

QUESTION: What is an example of a Per Curiam Decision?

ANSWER: Per Curiam decisions are defined as decisions made without justification provided and therefore they have no subsequent use beyond the case at hand. Per Curiam status must be announced before the opinion itself. The majority of cases are not decided on the basis on Per Curiam however. Per Curiam decisions are pretty brief in length. Judges rarely ever use Per Curiam decisions to settle controversial issues since it’s nearly impossible to set precedents for such cases.

Example of Per Curiam decision: Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore in 2000. According to Wikipedia, the per curiam opinion in Bush v. Gore did not technically dismiss the case, and instead “remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.” There’s no guarantee that this type of event won’t occur again in the future.
on February 26, 2009 at 8:05 pm Cyle Christianson Said:

In what instances do cases automatically go to federal court (besides between two states or between a state and a foreign nation)?

Cases go to federal court for federal crimes that have been made, like any of the crimes that are explicitly in the constitution. 2% of all laws are federal laws. Also, cases that go to federal court are not likely to be heard, as they usually settle out of court.
on February 26, 2009 at 8:06 pm Cyle Christianson Said:

How would the American judicial system change if the members of ALL courts were directly elected by the people? (Most likely in staggered elections).
on February 27, 2009 at 4:04 pm Rebecca Rathbun Said:

What is the role of the solicitor general?
on February 27, 2009 at 5:08 pm Jonathan Dyer Said:

What are the pros and cons of having lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court?

Are the precedents set in Federalist 78 still applicable today?
on February 28, 2009 at 6:13 am Renee Davidson Said:

In the event that Congress shrinks the number of seats in the Supreme Court, does someone get kicked off or do they just wait for one of them to finish their term?
on February 28, 2009 at 6:23 am Renee Davidson Said:

Q: What are two important influences when the President is choosing appointees to the Supreme Court?

A: Senatorial courtesy is a big part in choosing any appointee to any court. Normally when the president is choosing somebody to go to a District Court, he talks to the Senators from that state, and if they give the OK, the rest of the Senate follows. I’d imagine for the Supreme Court the president must talk with a few more people, or it might just go to the Senate Judiciary Committee. They screen appointees and send recommendations to the Senate floor for approval or rejection.

*****Mr. Kautzman~ Is this right?? I think I got it for the most part, but I’m just checking.
on February 28, 2009 at 12:50 pm Jordan Yaeger Said:

If the federal courts do not decide “political questions” who does?
on February 28, 2009 at 6:04 pm Madelin Copus Said:

In the reading it stated that the lawyers spoke for 30 minutes in most cases. In what case would one be allowed more than 30 minutes for their argument?
on February 28, 2009 at 6:07 pm Sarah Massie Said:

What is the role of the solicitor general?

The solicitor general is in charge of the appellate court litigation of the government. The solicitor general and his staff have four key functions. The first one is to decide whether to appeal cases the government has lost in the lower courts. The second is to review and modify the briefs presented to government appeals. The third is to represent the government before the Supreme Court. The fourth is to submit a brief on behalf of a litigant in a case in where the government is not directly involved.
on February 28, 2009 at 6:20 pm Sarah Massie Said:

What are the factors influencing the selction of judges?
on February 28, 2009 at 7:36 pm Rachel Damiano :) Said:

Q: What is an example of a Per Curiam Decision?

A: These are extremely short and do not give an explanation such as a decision from 2007 which stated: Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
Stevens filed a dissent, which Ginsburg joined. (Allen v. Siebert) Short, sweet, and to the point. There were six per Curiam decisions in the 2007 Supreme Court year.
on February 28, 2009 at 7:39 pm Rachel Damiano :) Said:

Are federal judges actually elected by the Senate or simply needed to have the “advice and consent”?

What are the duties of the head of the Justice Department?
on March 1, 2009 at 7:40 am Malaika Chandler Said:

“What is the role of the solicitor general?”

The Solicitor General is the third ranking official in the Department of Justice. Also a presidential appointee. He’s in charge of appellate court litigation in the federal government. His four main functions are deciding whether to appeal or not when the U.S. government has lost cases in lower courts, reviewing and/or modifying the briefs that are presented in those appeals, representing the U.S. government in the Supreme Court (Like U.S. attorneys in lower federal courts), and submitting a brief on behalf of a litigant in cases in which the government is not directly involved (when it isn’t either the defendant or the plaintiff).

I guess in the end, he’s just there to make sure the federal government is well represented in court cases.
on March 1, 2009 at 7:42 am Malaika Chandler Said:

Does the Supreme Court always set the precedent or does it sometimes make decisions based on stare decisis?
on March 1, 2009 at 3:19 pm Cole Ziegler Said:

Q: Does the Supreme Court always set the precedent or does it sometimes make decisions based on stare decisis?

A: The Supreme Court often makes decision based on stare decisis. I recall some statistic in the book that about one-third of cases picked by the SC are just passed on after further review on basis of stare decisis. In other words, they agree the lower court made the right decision and stand by it.
on March 1, 2009 at 5:20 pm Dave Marshall Said:

What is an example of a Per Curiam decision?

One example of a Per Curiam decision is the Florida debate for voting in 2000, on whether or not Bush or Gore should be president. The court ruling applies only to this case, and is not expected that a tie should go to a republican, or anything like that. There was no “reason” to why the court ruled the way they did, and did not want to enforce a pattern for other courts to interpret, so it was a Per Curiam decision.
on March 1, 2009 at 5:21 pm Dave Marshall Said:

If a law is declared unconstitutional, can the law still be enforced? If so, can you provide an example and a reason?
on March 1, 2009 at 9:08 pm Alena Schoonmaker Said:

Is it possible for a lower court to go against the precedent set by the Supreme Court, either as a precedential decision or a per curiam decision?
on March 1, 2009 at 9:17 pm Alena Schoonmaker Said:

In the reading it stated that the lawyers spoke for 30 minutes in most cases. In what case would one be allowed more than 30 minutes for their argument?

Oral arguments may be longer than 30 minutes at the Court’s request. Also, the respondent and apellee may request more time prior to the oral argument and no later than seven days after their briefs have been filed. They must state why more time is needed, but more time is rarely afforded to them.
on March 2, 2009 at 3:47 pm Bruce Graham Said:

What is the difference between a Grand Jury and a regular jury?

What is the signifigance of Stare Decisis as it applies to precedent?
on March 2, 2009 at 4:50 pm Ashley Rowe Said:

What does it mean when courts have appellate jurisdiction?

Why does the Supreme Court have appellate and original jurisdiction?
on March 2, 2009 at 4:52 pm Nicole Thompson Said:

Explain the difference between judicial restraint and judicial activism. How are these terms related to Federalist #78 and what was Alexander Hamilton’s position for argumentation?
on March 2, 2009 at 5:46 pm Ashley Rowe Said:

What is an example of a Per Curiam Decision?

An example is Brandenburg v. Ohio, which was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action.
on March 2, 2009 at 7:12 pm Haley Nelson Said:

If a law is declared unconstitutional, can the law still be enforced? If so, can you provide an example and a reason?

If a law is declared unconstitutional it can still be enforced, but the in that case the defendant could appeal the charge and probably get it removed. Most of the time if laws are struck down, the enforcers would stop enforcing them.
An example would be Brown v. Board of Education. Segregation in pubic schools was ruled to be unconstitutional and the second Brown “enforced” this. (That is an oxymoron because the judiciary can’t actually enforce anything.) Just because the courts determined segregation unconstitutional that doesn’t mean it stopped right away.
on March 2, 2009 at 8:25 pm ryanphillipy Said:

What sort of a dispute is not a justiciable dispute?

When a Class action suit is determined how are the divisions of the reparations determined?
on March 2, 2009 at 8:27 pm brennan waller Said:

Why might a substantial “paper trail” hurt a nomination’s chances of being confirmed?
on March 2, 2009 at 8:42 pm brennan waller Said:

What are the duties of the head of the Justice Department?

The head of the Justice Department is the Attorney General. The Attorney General is seen as the chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. So, this means that he represents the United States in legal matters and gives advice to the President and to the other department heads on certain issues dealing with the law. Whenever there is a case of major importance being presented to the Supreme Court, the Attorney General appears in person before the justices.
on March 3, 2009 at 3:10 pm Rebecca Rathbun Said:

What does it mean when courts have appellate jurisdiction?

Appellate jurisdiction is when a court has jurisdiction over cases that are brought to it from lower courts. In these cases, the court focuses solely on the legal issue involved in the case.
on March 3, 2009 at 3:33 pm Tommy Urann Said:

Who chooses the judges who take seat on the supreme court?
on March 3, 2009 at 5:29 pm Brad Vander Linden Said:

What is the order of the courts in our judicial system?
What courts feed their cases into the Appellate Courts?
on March 3, 2009 at 6:29 pm Savannah Hunka Said:

If a law is declared unconstitutional, can the law still be enforced? If so, can you provide an example and a reason?

In any case where the Supreme Court decides a law unconstitutional, it is up to the executive and legislative branch to enforce it because the Supreme Court has not “army” or means of making that law inactive. For example, Chief Justice Marshall said that the capture and imprisonment of Japanese-Americans into Internment Camps was unconstitutional; however, President Andrew Jackson replied, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” This shows that without the help of the other two branches, the Supreme Court cannot enforce any such actions.
on March 3, 2009 at 6:32 pm Savannah Hunka Said:

Describe the Warren Court, the Burger Court, and the Rehnquist Court and what were the significance of each. Which one of these three eras gave the Court the most power?
on March 3, 2009 at 7:31 pm Samuel D Fitterer Said:

Q. What is the role of the solicitor general?
A. The solicitor general is basically a 10th justice on the supreme court due to all the influence he has. He basically has four jobs
1. To decide whether or not to appeal cases that the government has lost in lower courts
2. To review and modify the briefs presented in government appeals
3. To represent the government in front of the supreme court
4. To submit a brief on behalf of the litigant in a case where the government is not involved.
on March 3, 2009 at 7:33 pm Samuel D Fitterer Said:

what is standing to sue? (please provide an example as well)
on March 3, 2009 at 7:34 pm Johanna Stafford Said:

What is the signifigance of Stare Decisis as it applies to precedent?

Many cases that reach the courts are ruled on stare decisis “let the decision stand” meaning, an earlier decision should hold for the case that is being considered. Courts rely on precendents, the way similiar cases were handled in the past, to help settle the current case. Stare decisis and precent both use previous decisions to either determine the present case or be the guildlines for the present case.
on March 3, 2009 at 7:37 pm Johanna Stafford Said:

In the district courts, why have there been recent problems of high turnover among the judges? What is the turnover rate?
on March 3, 2009 at 7:40 pm Clarin McDonald Said:

Question Why might a substantial “paper trail” hurt a nomination’s chances of being confirmed?

Answer: If a prospective judge has written extensively, his writings may be used against him during confirmation hearings. Bush 41 did not want to undergo a confirmation hearing battle with a nominee who had an extensive paper trail, so he played it safe by nominated David Souter, who was a virtual unknown.
on March 3, 2009 at 7:42 pm Clarin McDonald Said:

What is the difference between original jurisdiction and Appellate Jurisdiction? Which has more cases?
on March 3, 2009 at 7:43 pm Madelin Copus Said:

Question: In the event that Congress shrinks the number of seats in the Supreme Court, does someone get kicked off or do they just wait for one of them to finish their term?

Answer: If congress were to reduce the number of justices sitting on the bench of the Supreme Court they would would wait until a currently serving justice retires or is impeached, which is an unlikely event, and notify the president that they will not refill the seat.
on March 3, 2009 at 7:45 pm Erik Layton Said:

Why might a substantial “paper trail” hurt a nomination’s chances of being confirmed?

Congress must approve approve of a Judge or Justice before they may sit on the bench. A paper trail may hurt a nominees chances due to the partisan nature of Congress. A nominee who establish a clear history on judging cases will not be approved of by Congress.
on March 3, 2009 at 7:49 pm Erik Layton Said:

How may a Justice be removed from his post?
on March 3, 2009 at 8:02 pm Kellie Hensley Said:

What is the difference between a Grand Jury and a regular jury?

A- A grand jury doesn’t make a guilty/innocent decision about the case, they approve it to go onto that step. The grand jury’s job is to review the evidence and such to see if there should be a trial held. The jury is a panel of people brought before a court to determine if a litigant is innocent or guilty.
on March 3, 2009 at 8:04 pm Kellie Hensley Said:

In what cases is it unacceptable to NOT exercise senatorial courtesy? When is it acceptable to skip it?
on March 3, 2009 at 8:06 pm Nicole Thompson Said:

Q: What is Judicial Activism? Give one Example.

A: Jucicial activism is the judicial philosophy that bold policy decisions should be made in the courts to correct social and political problems.
An example of judicial activism would be the decisions in banning school prayer through separation of church and state. This issue involved the social aspect of religion, and was a bold decision that helped to further define the distinctions between public and private schools. The justices did not simply play, “referee”, they got involved and created policy within the court.
on March 3, 2009 at 8:23 pm Kathrine Kruse Said:

Does the Supreme Court always set the precedent or does it sometimes make decisions based on stare decisis?

Just to add on to Cole’s response, I would like to say that a precedent is a prior court case that set a principle that another court adopts when deciding their decision.
on March 3, 2009 at 8:23 pm Felica Soderstrom Said:

QUESTION: What does it mean when courts have appellate jurisdiction?

Why does the Supreme Court have appellate and original jurisdiction?

ANSWER:appellate jurisdicition is when a court hears only cases that have been brought to them from lower courts on appeal. The cou that have this do not review the fatual record, only the legal issues involved. There are 12 courts of appeals and one Federal Court of Appeal to regulate the other.

The supreme court chooses roughly 100 cases that have been appealed to them bythe federal and state courts. In this way they have appelate jurisdiction. Sometimes the Supreme court uses original jurisdiction; for instance, a case involving foreign diplomats,a case between two states, between a state and the citezen of another, between the U.S. and a state, and between a state and a foreign country.
on March 3, 2009 at 8:25 pm Felica Soderstrom Said:

Wat are the four types f written opinions? Describe them.
on March 3, 2009 at 8:48 pm Austin Ainslie Said:

Why might a substantial “paper trail” hurt a nomination’s chances of being confirmed?

A judicial nominee’s paper trail may hurt them because it is a hard copy of their stances on issues. If the Senate does not like the stances that the nominee has taken on important issues, then the nominee would be rejected. This can generally hurt the nominee when the President’s party does not have control over the Senate. If a Congressman is persistent about not letting a nominee be accepted, then he or she will use his or her paper trail against the nominee.
on March 3, 2009 at 8:49 pm Austin Ainslie Said:

What is the difference between stare decisis and precedent?
on March 3, 2009 at 9:12 pm Bates, Kellee Said:

Why might a substantial “paper trail” hurt a nomination’s chances of being confirmed?

Paper trails infer scandal and if they are substantial, then they prove scandal. When nominees are selected, congress needs to secure that they are worthwhile candidates. Voters don’t like dirty candidates; therefore, congress will not approve a candidate with a significant “paper trail.”
on March 3, 2009 at 9:16 pm Bates, Kellee Said:

How does congress go about changing the number of Supreme Court Justices and what would be a good reason for doing so?
on March 3, 2009 at 10:03 pm hillary susz Said:

What qualifications does a Supreme Court justice need, or typically, have? Were justices serving on the Supreme Court previously federal judges? Members of the Senate? The president’s neighbor? What kind of people are appointed to the Supreme Court?
on March 3, 2009 at 10:08 pm hillary susz Said:

Why might a substantial “paper trail” hurt a nomination’s chances of being confirmed?

Paper trials typically include scandal, linkage to scandal, or indications of future scandal. Obviously the president would be reluctant to appoint, and the senate would be reluctant to confirm, a nominee that had partaken in unlawful activities. For someone seeking to gain a spot on the Supreme Court, unlawful activities would be extremely contradictory and ridiculous and that individual, would obviously be undeserving of the position.
on March 3, 2009 at 10:15 pm Bruce Graham Said:

Q: What is the role of the solicitor general?

A: The Solicitor General and his staff of about 12 attorneys have four key functions
1. To decide whether to appeal cases the government has lost in lower courts
2. To review and modify the briefs presented in government appeals
3. To represent the government before the supreme court
4. To submit a brief on behalf of a litigant in a case in which the government is not directly involved
on March 3, 2009 at 10:25 pm Annika LaVoie Said:

How can the Supreme Court control its own agenda and pick which cases it hears? Are there certain requirements that a case must have before the Supreme Court even decides to look at it?
on March 3, 2009 at 10:31 pm Alexa Erickson Said:

QUESTION: Why might a substantial “paper trail” hurt a nomination’s chances of being confirmed?

ANSWER:
A substantial “paper trail” might prevent a nominee’s chance of being confirmed because such a “trail” shows that the nominee may have biases. As we read in Federalist #78, the ideal Justice should be “independent” from outside influences. Though this is impossible, a nominee that has been involved in many cases, especially controversial cases, demonstrates that he or she has strong convictions. Because a Justice is essentially representing the entire United States, he cannot hold preferences for one party or issue. In addition to this, Presidents who nominate Justices don’t want them to have been involved with controversial issues. While a paper trail may hinder a confirmation, ideology is often taken into consideration, which is demonstrating in “court packing”.
on March 3, 2009 at 10:34 pm Alexa Erickson Said:

Describe how the Supreme Court has evolved over time, as demonstrated through “John Marshall’s Court”, the “Nine Old Men”, the “Warren Court”, the “Burger Court”, and the “Rehnquist Court”.
on March 3, 2009 at 10:41 pm Annika LaVoie Said:

Q. What are the pros and cons of having lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court?

A. Some pros: permanent tenure would afford the justices to really get good at what they’re doing, without having to teach a freshmen class every few years the ins and outs of the Supreme Court. It would allow the justices to make wiser decisions and be more qualified to make those decisions when they can focus solely on the issue at hand instead of fearing when their time will be up. Finally, according to Federalist 78, if you have a justice willing to spend his whole life on something then you know you have a qualified dedicated man.
Some cons: lifetime terms would produce a stalemate in Congress. If you have the same bunch of men with their rigid ideas the whole time, who is there to argue the other side or produce the tipping point to vote one way or another. Fresh, new faces with new ideas are needed for new changing times. Furthemore, man is inherently evil, and after several years in the safe justice seat that man can only look out for his own interests instead of unbiasly deciding on a controversial issue. Man will at some point look to further his own success instead of looking for true justice.
on March 3, 2009 at 10:58 pm Jonathan Dyer Said:

What is the difference between stare decisis and precedent?

Precedent is when the Supreme Court uses past cases as references to a decision. This is like if the Supreme Court uses another decision as a reference for the decision being made. Most precedents are set with big cases, like Brown v. The Board of Education or Roe v. Wade or Korematsu v. United States. Stare decisis is when the Supreme Court uses the decision of a prior case to decide a case. For example, the Supreme Court, in Brown v. The Board of Education, could have ruled stare decisis, meaning Plessy v. Fergusson would stil have been the law. Another example would be if a case challenged Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court would use stare decisis to uphold the previous decision. Precedent setting decisions are usually the ones used in stare decisis
on March 3, 2009 at 11:11 pm Kyle Hermens Said:

Question: What is a justicable dispute?

A justiciable dispute is one that is capable of being settled by law. A court cannot decide a matter of subjective opinion, or with a matter that is unrelated to the law of the land. If you have been wronged by another party, been accused of a crime, or something that can be settled in court, it is a justiciable dispute.
on March 3, 2009 at 11:12 pm Kyle Hermens Said:

What are other names for Federal and Circuit Courts?
on March 3, 2009 at 11:40 pm Tyler Konsonlas Said:

What was the decision of the court case “Roe v. Wade of 1973″?
Why is the Court more likely to hear cases for which interest groups have filed amicus curiae briefs?
on March 4, 2009 at 8:28 am Claire Loomer Said:

What is Stare Decisis, and what is an example of a case of it?
on March 4, 2009 at 8:42 am Meagan Barnes Said:

Pros and cons of lifetime appointments-

Pros: It encourages the most qualified candidates to take the jobs. Few would leave successful firms unless they were guaranteed security. Also, it prevents justices from being easily influenced,because they do not have to worry about approval for reelection or reappointment.

Cons: Some see it as a system of elitists. Also, because it is a lifetime job, they justices do not have to be at all responsive to the will of the common good.
on March 4, 2009 at 8:43 am Meagan Barnes Said:

How long is a Supreme Court term? How many cases are heard during each term? How much time is given to each case?
on March 4, 2009 at 11:53 am Makayla Sander Said:

What is the difference between a grand jury and a regular jury?

A grand jury is the group that initially hears the facts for a case and decides whether or not there is enough evidence to indict the defendant. If there is enough evidence, the person is indicted and then they later go on to the real trial. A regular jury is the jury that decides whether or not the defendant is guilty based on the evidence presented during the trial.
on March 4, 2009 at 11:55 am Makayla Sander Said:

What is the percentage of supreme court nominees that are not confirmed by Congress?
How do cases make it from a federal court up to the Supreme Court?
on March 4, 2009 at 11:57 am Megan Smith Said:

How long is a Supreme Court term? How many cases are heard during each term? How much time is given to each case?

Each Supreme Court term starts on the first Monday in October and ends on the preceding day the next year. About 100 cases are heard each year, and it’s decreased in recent years to around 90. Each case is given about two weeks. One week to hear the case, and one week to deliberate.
on March 4, 2009 at 11:58 am Megan Smith Said:

What are the different courts, and what kinds of cases do they typically hear?
on March 4, 2009 at 2:05 pm pkautzman Said:

Question: What is the purpose of the Solicitor General and what is the role of he/she in the Supreme Court?

Cody T.
on March 4, 2009 at 2:12 pm Tommy Urann Said:

Q.)What are the pros and cons of having lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court?

Are the precedents set in Federalist 78 still applicable today

A.) Some pros of having lifetime appointments in the Supreme Court are: a lot of experience I.E. knowledge in the field, No need to mess with getting new judges all the time.

Cons of having lifetime appointments: If someone is corrupt they will be there for life if noone notices the corruption. The judge may be too lenient or too harsh.
on March 4, 2009 at 7:50 pm Tyler Konsonlas Said:

“What is Stare Decisis”, and what is an example of a case of it?”

Stare Decisis in Latin for “let the decision stand”, and this doctrine holds that judicial precedent has the force of law. Strict supporters of this doctrine dont like to see judges “legislate from the bench” and steer away from established precedent. Today, Supreme Court nominees are often asked about their stance regarding this doctrine.

Example: If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the right to abortion under certain conditions, it has established a precedent that lower courts are expected to follow.
on March 4, 2009 at 10:53 pm ryanphillipy Said:

Q: What does it mean when courts have appellate jurisdiction?

A: Appellate Jurisdiction is when the courts hear cases on appeals from lower courts, this jurisdiction decides legal errors from lower courts.

Leave a Comment