SUPREME COURT DECISION MAKING CHAPTER 12 OBJECTIVES EXPLAIN

SUPREME COURT DECISION MAKING CHAPTER 12

OBJECTIVES • EXPLAIN HOW THE SUPREME COURT SELECTS, HEARS, & DECIDES CASES • IDENTIFY WAYS THE SUPREME COURT SHAPES PUBLIC POLICY • DESCRIBE THE FORCES THAT SHAPE THESUPREME COURT’S DECISIONS

THE COURT’S PROCEDURES • CASES ARE HEARD FOR 2 CONSECUTIVE WEEKS PER MONTH • ORAL ARGUMENTS ARE TYPICALLY HEARD MONDAY THROUGH WEDNESDAY • THE COURT HEARS ABOUT 10% OF CASES THAT ARE APPEALED

HOW CASES REACH THE COURT • THE MAIN ROUTE IS AWRIT OF CERTIORARI—ORDER FOR A LOWER COURT TO SEND A CASE FOR REVIEW • A SMALL NUMBER OF CASES REACH ON APPEAL • SELECTING CASES IS BASED ON THE “RULE OF FOUR”—ANY J 4 USTICES AGREE TO HEAR A CASE • RULINGS CAN BE GIVEN WITHOUT HEARING NEW INFO THROUGH APER CURIUM OPINION

STEPS IN DECIDING MAJOR CASES • LAWYERS ON BOTH SIDES SUBMIT BRIEFS—WRITTEN, LEGAL ARGUMENTS • PARTIES NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED CAN SUBMITAMICUS CURIAE—”FRIEND OF THE COURT” • LAWYERS ARE GIVEN 30 MINUTES TO PRESENT ORAL ARGUMENTS • JUSTICES MEET PRIVATELY ON FRIDAYS TO DISCUSS CASES THAT HAVE BEEN HEARD • A SIMPLE MAJORITY DECIDES THE VOTE; A TIE MEANS THE LOWER COURT RULING STANDS

OPINIONS • UNANIMOUS • MAJORITY • CONCURRING • DISSENTING

SHAPING PUBLIC POLICY • THE COURT IS A POLITICAL AND LEGAL INSTITUTION • POWER TO EXAMINE LAW IS JUDICIAL REVIEW— ESTABLISHED IN MARBURY V. MADISON • JUDICIAL REVIEW HAS INFLUENCED CIVIL RIGHTS (I. E. BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION AND MIRANDA V. ARIZONA • THE COURT ALSO INTERPRETS EXISTING LAWS— ROE V. WADE • A PREVIOUSCOURT’S RULING SETS PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE CASES BUT CAN BE OVERTURNED

LIMITS ON THE SUPREME COURT • THE COURT PLAYS VERY LITTLE ROLE IN AREAS LIKE FOREIGN POLICY • ONLY SUBSTANTIAL OR POTENTIALLY HARMFUL CASES ARE HEARD • THE COURT DOES NOT MAKE ITS OWN AGENDA • DOES NOT HAVE POWER TO ENFORCE ITS RULINGS • INVOLVED IN THE SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES

DECISIONS AND RELATIONSHIPS • DECISIONS ARE TO BE MADE ON LAW, NOT PERSONAL OPINION • MUST RELATE LOGICALLY TO THECONSTITUTION • EARLY JUSTICES LIVED TOGETHER DURING SESSIONS • HARMONY LEADS TO COMPROMISE • CHIEF JUSTICE DIRECTS DISCUSSION AND RELATIONS BETWEENJUSTICES

BALANCING THE COURT’S POWER • THE PRESIDENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR APPOINTING JUSTICES • EVERY FULL TERM PRESIDENT EXCEPT CARTER APPOINTED AT LEAST ONE JUSTICE • CONGRESS GIVES “ADVICE AND CONSENT” ON NOMINEES AND HOLDS THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT