Term
|
Definition
| Herrera was tried and convicted of murder and sentenced to death, but claimed that newfound affidavit evidence proved his innocence; the Supreme Court declared that the old ruling had to hold and Herrera was executed |
|
|
Term
| Can judges be considered to be policy-makers? |
|
Definition
Technically yes but it’s hardly ‘party line’ to say so…see White & Scalia sass-off on that topic, wherein White admits using his own discretion and ‘making law’ but Scalia tries to avoid it
• Segal & Spaeth think Scalia is full of it |
|
|
Term
| Printz v United States (1997) |
|
Definition
| textbook Scalia, ruling against certain provisions of the Brady Handgun Act |
|
|
Term
| Segal & Spaeth's Five Reasons: Fundamental Law |
|
Definition
From the Colonial era, the Constitution was ________________ in the sense that religious texts were law for religious people, and surrounded by the same degree of worship besides
• Constitution as a sacred text; cultural predisposition |
|
|
Term
| Segal & Spaeth's Five Reasons: Distrust of Government Power |
|
Definition
| • Early concerns over Britain’s misuse of power made for an American government wary of legislative and executive branches, there was little/no fear of the judiciary, pro-judge Constitution |
|
|
Term
| Segal & Spaeth's Five Reasons: Separation of Powers |
|
Definition
• Compartmentalization of government
• Courts were not seen as a threat, fewer checks on them
• When the President and Congress disagree, the Court gets to step in and adjudicate those battles
• Life tenure and salary protection make federal judges free of executive and congressional control once on the bench |
|
|
Term
| Segal & Spaeth's Five Reasons: Federalism |
|
Definition
| Conflicts between state and federal → courts get to step in |
|
|
Term
| Segal & Spaeth's Five Reasons: Judicial Review |
|
Definition
| Legislative and executive actions are subject to review by the judiciary, judges can declare laws & executive actions unconstitutional |
|
|
Term
| Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816) |
|
Definition
| Supreme Court’s authority asserted over state courts in the matter of federal law |
|
|
Term
| Cohens v. Virginia (1821) |
|
Definition
| State laws opposing federal laws are void |
|
|
Term
| What do Segal and Spaeth's "five reasons" prove? |
|
Definition
| That federal judges have “virtually untrammeled policy-making authority” |
|
|
Term
| Public opinion of the judiciary |
|
Definition
“Fairy tale of the discretionless judiciary," - Segal & Spaeth
"Cult of the Robe" -Jerome Frank
Mythology that helps the court because it results in public agreement to adhere to judicial rulings |
|
|
Term
| Constraints on Judicial Power - Advisory Opinions |
|
Definition
| where other courts can issue opinions on a case (not a thing in America) |
|
|
Term
| Constraints on Judicial Power- Collusive Disputes |
|
Definition
| Where there's a fake argument over something to make the courts address it--illegal in United States |
|
|
Term
| Constraints on Judicial Power- Ripeness |
|
Definition
| an issue has to have arisen by being brought to court, must be an issue where judicial action could/would alter the situation (mootness) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the state court, not the federal courts, which only have “limited jurisdiction” that has to be affirmatively proven and asserted |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| some claims for which you can go to either state or federal court |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| when you select either state or federal based on which you think is more likely to give you the result you want |
|
|
