LSTD 510 1-2 JUDICIAL AUTHORITY

Introduction to LSTD 510 1-2 Judicial Authority

For this Owlisdom, LSTD 510 1 2 Judicial Authority assignment, you need to have a good grasp of judicial review, specifically, from Articles III and VI of the U.S. constitution and judicial activism. You will analyze checks and balances between the branches of government, research a case before the Supreme Court that exemplifies judicial activism, assessing its conformity with constitutional principles, and the doctrine of stare decisis. The goal of this exercise is to improve your level of critical thinking, as well as your analytical constitutional law skills..

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

• Read and understand the content of Articles III and VI carefully. Instead concern how they identify the judicial power and supremacy of the Constitution and federal laws.

Example

Marbury v. is most well known for introducing us to judicial review, the preeminent elements of American jurisprudence.. (Marbury v., setting forth the doctrine of the Supreme Court’s power to invalidate federal laws in conflict with the Constitution), 5 U.S. 137, Madison. Madison, n.d.). Although not so much as spelled out in the Constitution, this principle is very consistent with the concept of checks and balances from Articles III and VI. Article III sets forth the judicial when the Supreme Court receives its power from this article and state the jurisdiction in which they hold, including that the Supreme Court serves as the interpreter of the law and enforcer of the Constitution (The Constitution of the United States, 2015). The Constitution, federal laws, declared in Article VI as being the Supreme Law of the nation, that all judges swear [an] oath to uphold and that sovereigns any state code in conflict with it.

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

• Explain how the Executive and Legislative sheets check the Judicial sheet. Include their specific (mechanisms) powers they use.

Example

The separation of powers doctrine places great checks on the judiciary belonging to the legislative and executive branches of the United States government. Its power is to form the structure and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which is chiefly the Congress. Among these are the definition of the appellate jurisdiction of the Court as specified by Article III, § 2 of the Constitution, thus leaving the delineation of the kinds of cases the Court may hear to the discretion of Congress. If that is the case Congress is empowered not only to enact constitutional amendments to reverse judicial decisions but to directly alter the legal landscape. The President has a large effect on the judiciary through his role as being responsible for Supreme Court justices appointments on the executive side. Those appointments require Senate advice and consent, and can result in huge amounts of negotiations and decisions on what Court ideological balance and judicial philosophy should be. The power granted under Article II, section 2 of the Constitution to this President to appoint the judges of the United States is an appointment power, and it is this indirect power that indicates the great direct influence that this President carries on the composition, and consequently, on the opinions of the judicial branch.

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

• Can judicial activism be a form of the checks and balances? Discuss it with historical background. Think about that as if it’s a problem, or find solutions to it.

Example

Judicial activism refers to court cases that are interpreted as literally being too progressive and to the point that they will depart from established legal wisdom. The idea behind this concept has appeared in the U.S. legal discourse as early as the 1940s — when individuals condemned the Supreme Court decisions that widened civil rights and liberties. It is an argument that can be made that judicial activism serves as a check and balance to the other branches action which may eviscerate constitutional principles. But critics say it potentially eats away at the stability afforded by the doctrine of stare decisis, which maintains the status quo in law. To counter worries about judicial activism, for example, one might suggest a tougher commitment to originalist approaches treating the Constitution or an enhanced intensity in the Senate process for looking at judicial appointments to guarantee a fair proportion of 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

• Look for a recent example of judicial activism using Nexis Uni, a Supreme Court case. Make sure the case is within 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

• Outline the selected case, using LSTD 510 1-2 Judicial Authority to summarize the Court’s decision and your own argument for why it constitutes judicial activism. Add details from the dissent.

Example

In a landmark case of Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, the United States Supreme Court found that the right to marry constitutes for same sex couples, a fundamental liberty and is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection and due process (Obergeffel, 576 U.S. 669). Many cheered the ruling as a victory of civil rights while others depicted it as judicial activism (Obergefell .) Hodges, n.d.). This usurp [of] of the democratic process is what caused the dissenting justices to argue that decisions about such policies as marriage should be left to the legislature and by the will of the electorate rather than the decision from a judge (Obergefell, 576 U.S. at 689). This division marks the latest round of argument about the role of the judiciary in defining 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

• In the case LSTD 510 1-2 Judicial Authority, decide if the holding of the case is in accordance with the Constitution and if it affects the doctrine of stare decisis.s. Talk about horizontal and vertical stare decisis with examples.

Example

If judicial activism is allowed, it may threaten the virtue of stare decisis doctrine, that courts should follow the predecents to have the legal predictability and uniformity. Where by the previous expression, horizontal stare decisis, the expression imports the means of a court adhering to its previous decisions; by the latter expression, vertical stare decisis, the expression imports how a lower court shall follow the precedent of higher court. Attending to prior decisions by Supreme Court, such as regarding the First Amendment in Citizens United v., is an example of horizontal stare decisis.d 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. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310. 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

• Case Explanation Lstd 510 1 – 2: Judicial Authority: Explain how you would have decided the case given, existing laws, legal practices and the political/public climate.e. Recommend ideas for the bridging the gaps.

Example

If I were to decide Obergefell, I might side with the majority because it comports with developing equal protection and due process.. Legal research tools in technology make available for broader access more legal precedents and scholarly critiques, which support the increasingly informed judicial decisions. But social media’s all pervasive presence can distort public perceptions and judicial independence pressures. Enlarging digital literacy among the judiciary to see and withstand such pressures well.

Conclusion

• Key takeaways from the assignment LSTD 510 1-2 Judicial Authority should be summarized.In the next module of LSTD 510 2-1 Ammending The Constitution, highlight the importance of understanding judicial review and activism within the framework of the checks and balances. checks and balances.In the next module of  LSTD 510 2-1 Ammending The Constitution

Example

Judicial Review The key takeaways of the assignment LSTD 510 1 2: What Judicial Jurisdiction should be about In the next module LSTD 510 2 1: Ammending The Constitution: about the importance of the understanding of judicial review and how it should be taking the shape if checking and balance of the American governance.e. Judicial activism within this framework is a complicated force. It is capable to render great effects such as legal and social changes and to overthrow the traditional explanation and to lead forward into the progressive norms. Yet it also requires a careful relationship with judicial restraint so we don’t end up with too much legal consistency and not enough legal predictability. To help maintain the integrity, public trust and overall goal of fairness we maintain in our legal system, getting this equilibrium of activism and adherence to legal precedents just right is essential. The balance that exists helps the judiciary cope with contemporary issues while honoring the sort of legal structures laid down in 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