LSTD 510 1-2 JUDICIAL AUTHORITY

INTRODUCTION TO LSTD 510 1-2 JUDICIAL AUTHORITY

This Owlisdom, LSTD 510 1-2 Judicial Authority assignment requires a comprehensive understanding of judicial review, particularly focusing on Articles III and VI of the U.S. Constitution and the concept of judicial activism. You will analyze the checks and balances between the branches of government, research a Supreme Court case exemplifying judicial activism, and assess its alignment with constitutional principles and the doctrine of stare decisis. This exercise aims to deepen your critical thinking and analytical skills in constitutional law.

Read Article III and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution: Article III and VI

Introduction to Judicial Review and Examination of Articles III and VI

• Carefully read and understand the content of Articles III and VI. Focus on how they define the judicial power and the supremacy of the Constitution and federal laws.

Example

Judicial review, a cornerstone of American jurisprudence, emerged from Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, establishing the Supreme Court’s authority to invalidate federal laws conflicting with the Constitution (Marbury v. Madison, n.d.). This principle, though not explicitly outlined in the Constitution, aligns with the broader framework of checks and balances detailed in Articles III and VI. Article III vests judicial power in the Supreme Court and outlines its jurisdiction, emphasizing its role in interpreting the law and ensuring its alignment with the Constitution (The Constitution of the United States, 2015). Article VI declares the Constitution and federal laws as the supreme law of the land, mandating all judges to adhere to it, superseding any conflicting state statutes.

Summarize the scope of the checks and balances that the Executive and/or Legislative Branches of government have available to them relative to the Judicial Branch of government.

Scope of Checks and Balances Relative to the Judicial Branch

• Summarize how the Executive and Legislative branches check the Judicial branch. Include specific powers and mechanisms they use.

Example

The legislative and executive branches of the United States government hold substantial checks over the judiciary, which is a crucial aspect of the separation of powers doctrine. The Congress, specifically, has the authority to shape the structure and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It includes defining the appellate jurisdiction of the Court, as delineated in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, allowing Congress to influence the kinds of cases the Court may hear. Moreover, Congress can enact constitutional amendments that have the power to reverse judicial decisions, thereby directly affecting the legal landscape. On the executive side, the President plays a significant role in shaping the judiciary through the appointment of Supreme Court justices. These appointments require the advice and consent of the Senate, which can lead to significant negotiations and considerations, thus influencing the Court’s ideological balance and judicial philosophy. This appointment power is outlined in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution and underscores the President’s indirect but profound impact on the judicial branch’s composition and, subsequently, its rulings.

In light of the Supreme Court’s role in federal government, do you think that it is correctly deemed activist when people disagree with its decisions and restrained when the Court does not take any action to disturb a prior decision or declare a law unconstitutional?  Historically, how long has the judicial activism concept existed within the United States?  Could judicial activism, if it exists, be a form of checks or balances on either/both the Executive and/or Legislative branches?  What does literature in other fields (e.g., political science, public policy, history, etc.) indicate about this question?  Either way, if you believe that such activism is a problem, what solutions do you recommend to fix it?  How do your proposed solutions fit within the scope of Checks and Balances, if at all?

Judicial Activism and Its Implications

• Discuss whether judicial activism can be a form of checks and balances and provide historical context. Consider whether it is seen as a problem and propose solutions.

Example

The term “judicial activism” is often used pejoratively to describe court decisions that are perceived as overly progressive or departing from established legal norms. This concept has been recognized in U.S. legal discourse since at least the 1940s when it was used to criticize the Supreme Court’s decisions that expanded civil rights and liberties. Judicial activism can be viewed as a form of checks and balances, providing a counterweight to actions of the other branches that may contravene constitutional principles. However, critics argue that it can undermine the stability provided by the doctrine of stare decisis, which promotes legal continuity. To address concerns about judicial activism, one could advocate for stricter adherence to originalist interpretations of the Constitution or promote a more rigorous Senate review of judicial appointments to ensure balanced judicial philosophies.

Using Nexis Uni, research U.S. Supreme Court cases and locate one case (from within the past ten years) that you believe exemplifies the concept of judicial activism.

Locating Case Study

• Use Nexis Uni to find a recent Supreme Court case that exemplifies judicial activism. Ensure the case is from the past ten years.

Explain in your own words what the case is about, the Court’s decision (majority, concurring and dissenting), and your argument as to why that case displays the Court’s activism. What did the dissent assert and if the dissent discusses precedent and/or stare decisis, explain this point.

Case Study of Judicial Activism: Obergefell v. Hodges

• Summarize LSTD 510 1-2 Judicial Authority  the selected case, including the Court’s decision and your argument on why it displays judicial activism. Include details from the dissent.

Example

In the landmark case of Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, the United States Supreme Court held that the right to marry is a fundamental liberty that extends to same-sex couples, affirming their right under the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection and due process rights (Obergefell, 576 U.S. at 669). The ruling was celebrated by many as a victory for civil rights but criticized by others as an act of judicial activism (Obergefell v. Hodges, n.d.). The dissenting justices contended that the decision usurped the democratic process, arguing that decisions on social policies like marriage should be left to the legislative branches, reflecting the electorate’s will rather than the judicial mandate (Obergefell, 576 U.S. at 689). This division highlights the ongoing debate over the judiciary’s role in shaping social policy in the United States.

Do you think that, given the activism, the case’s holding is still aligned with our Constitution? Do you think such activism can erode the doctrine of stare decisis? Why or why not?  What is the difference between horizontal stare decisis and vertical stare decisis? Provide your own example(s).

Stare Decisis and Its Erosion

• Assess if the LSTD 510 1-2 Judicial Authority  case’s holding aligns with the Constitution and if it affects the doctrine of stare decisis. Explain horizontal and vertical stare decisis with examples.

Example

Judicial activism can potentially erode the doctrine of stare decisis, which requires courts to follow precedents to ensure legal predictability and uniformity. Horizontal stare decisis refers to a court adhering to its previous decisions, while vertical stare decisis mandates lower courts to follow higher courts’ precedents. An example of horizontal stare decisis is the Supreme Court’s adherence to its earlier decisions regarding the First Amendment in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (Citizens United v. FEC, n.d.).

Given precedent, how would you have decided the case that you chose to summarize? Explain.

a. How is your proposed decision hampered or supported by the existing law or practices in the legal field, or political / social climate, etc.? What recommendations do you have to bridge the gap (if any) between what you would like to do in your proposed decision and the existing law, legal practices, and/or climate, etc.? 

b. Could technology [including, but not limited to the use of electronic legal (research or other kinds of) tools and/or social media] help facilitate, or interfere with, the change that you are seeking?  How?  If you view technology as a problem, then what recommendations do you have for overcoming the challenges that you see, relative to your proposed decision?

Proposed Decision and Technological Implications

• ExplainL std 510 1-2 Judicial Authority  how you would have decided the case, considering existing laws, legal practices, and the political/social climate. Make recommendations for bridging gaps.

Example

If I were to decide Obergefell, supporting the majority would align with evolving interpretations of equal protection and due process. Technology, especially legal research tools, facilitates broader access to legal precedents and scholarly critiques, supporting informed judicial decisions. However, the omnipresence of social media can skew public perceptions and pressures on judicial independence. Overcoming this requires enhancing digital literacy among the judiciary to discern and withstand such pressures effectively.

Conclusion

• Summarize the key takeaways from the assignment LSTD 510 1-2 Judicial Authority. Highlight the importance of understanding judicial review and activism within the framework of checks and balances.In the next module of  LSTD 510 2-1 Ammending The Constitution

Example

Judicial review serves as a dynamic interpretative tool that upholds the Constitution’s supremacy, embodying a fundamental principle of American governance. Within this framework, judicial activism represents a complex and sometimes contentious force. It can provoke significant legal and societal changes, challenging traditional interpretations and promoting progressive norms. However, it also necessitates a delicate balance with judicial restraint to maintain legal consistency and predictability. Ensuring this equilibrium between activism and adherence to legal precedents is crucial for sustaining the judiciary’s integrity, public trust, and the broader goal of fairness within our legal system. This balance helps the judiciary address contemporary issues effectively while respecting the foundational legal structures established by the Constitution.

References

Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). (n.d.). Justia Law. Retrieved June 21, 2024, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). (n.d.). Justia Law. Retrieved June 21, 2024, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015). (n.d.). Justia Law. Retrieved June 21, 2024, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/644/

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription. (2015, November 4). National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript