1)Name The Ways That The U.S. Judiciary Is Restricted In

The supreme court is the highest, most important court in the United States and the titles of the men and women who serve on the high court are associate justices. There are over nine judges who are on the supreme court, eight are associate justices and one is the chief justice. They are all appointed by the presidet but they are approved by the senate. The term of office for the nine judges who serve for the high court is for life. There are over 91 district courts, which are the lowest courts, and 12 appellate courts. Three courts that are part of the federal judicial system are the Court of Military Appeals, United States Claims Court, and United States Tax Court. The nine type of cases the Supreme court and federal courts have jurisdiction over are the constitution, federal laws, treaties, law governing ships, the United States government itself, ambassadors or public ministers, two or more state governents, citizens od different states and a state or its citizens versus a foreign country or foreign citizen. The process of checking the laws of our land is called the judicial review. When the supreme court declares a law unconstitutional, it means that the law goes against the constitution of the United States. In order for a person to be convicted of treason two witnessess must testify, telling the exact same story and/or the accused must confess in a

Describe the organization and foundation of the American legal system. Explain the different roles of the federal and state government.

The judicial branch, or the judiciary, is basically the court system for the United States. Their main purpose is to make sure all laws passed are in accordance with the Constitution, and to resolve any disagreements. The decisions in the courtroom are either ruled constitutional or unconstitutional. They also have judicial review which is the ability to declare laws unconstitutional. The head of the judiciary is the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is made up of nine judges, one of which is called the chief justice. The judges are appointed by the President and supported by the Senate if they are in agreement. These judges do not

A court is a way for society to formally punish wrongdoers or criminals and make decisions. Courts determine behaviors based on society beliefs on what is acceptable behavior and which behavior is not and deserves punishment. Courts also decide on what is fair, just, punishment, how long to enforce a punishment, and innocents. Courts interrupt laws that can have impact on citizens, businesses, private parties, government officials, and many more. The purpose of the court is to upholding the law, protecting individuals, resolving disputes and reinforcing social norms. There are three elements to be considered a court in America. The first is the court must have the proper legal authority to be a court. This is given by constitutions or statues that have been created. The second is courts are found in the judicial branch. There are some exceptions to this but for the most part all courts will fall under the judicial branch. The third is when a court makes a

The United States government consists of three main branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Within the contents of this essay, the judicial branch will be examined. The judicial branch of the United States government oversees justice throughout the country by expounding and applying laws by means of a court system.1 This system functions by hearing and determining the legality of such cases.2 Sitting at the top of the United States court system is the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of the United States encompasses the federal judiciary, explicitly the judicial branch. This court is comprised of life-long serving Justices who are selected by the President of the United States and approved by the Senate.3 Cooperatively,

D. Explain how each of the following influences decisions made by individual justices when deciding cases heard by the courts.

2. What is the power of judicial review, and why is it so important to our legal system?

In this chapter, the question of if judicial independence is being undermined is asked. Attacks upon activist judges is a recurring theme in the United States. Various judges are attacked across the state for the decisions they make. In an adversary system, a judge’s decision often fails to find favor with the losing party. These losing parties normally label the judge as and “activist”. This means that the judge had made an unpopular opinion. There has been many examples of judges being subject to the attacks such as when Justice Penny White was voted off the bench because she voted in a death penalty case to grant the defendant more leeway. These attacks on judges can have a harsh impact on the judicial independence. The American Judicature

Discuss the view that the power of the Supreme Court cannot be justified in a

Courts impact policy through how they interpret and apply the law. How the federal court wields their

Judicial restraint and activism are two philosophies that address how people think judges should act in a case. Judicial restraint is a theory of judicial decision making that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. It asserts that judges should restrain their own opinions and defer policy decisions to elected officials in the legislative and executive branches. Judicial activism is a theory of judicial decision making in which judges protect or extend individual rights based on what they believe would benefit society. Supporters of this theory believe that judges should not restrain their

The debate between Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint really grabbed my attention. Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint are two different ways to interpret the constitution and its laws. Both interpretations have their own strengths and weaknesses, which is why it is so hard to come to a final decision of which is acceptable and which is not (in most cases). While at the debate I didn’t realize how many cases have boiled down to these two concepts. There have been many cases ended up being decided by both interpretations.

The United States court system is the institution were all the legal disputes in the american society are carryed out and resolved. However, one single court is not enough to resolve every single dispute in society and that is why the court system is made up of two different courts, the federal courts and the state courts. Moreover, the federal and state courts are made up of several divisions made to handle legal disputes differently depending on its seriousness. For example, the state court is made up of trial courts of limited jurisdiction and probate courts were cases and disputes originate and then move up to trial courts of general jurisdiction, intermediate apellate courts, and courts of last resort respectively depending on the case.In contrast, the federal court consists of district courts, territorial coutrs, tax court, court of international trade, claims court, court of veterans appeals, an courts of military review which then move on to courts of appeals respectively and may ultimately end up in the United States supreme court. In addition, cases from state court may also appeal into the federal court system but not the other way around.

Judicial restraint refers to the philosophy in which judges should not have the authority or discretion to interpret the law in whatever way they want, instead they should interpret the law the way that the legislators and the U.S. Constitution intended the law to be interpreted because most judges are non-elected officials. [1 legal] However, many judges disagree with this because

Judicial elections, a process virtually unheard of in any other modern-day democracy, is the most popular method of selecting judges in the United States. The elections are either partisan, requiring the candidates to secure an endorsement by a political party; non-partisan, requiring no political endorsements for the candidates; or retention, requiring appointed judges to face reelection to retain their seats after some time on the bench. Judicial elections were established in the nineteenth century to balance public accountability and political independence of the judges. And, with the settlement of most large-scale controversies ranging from: gun control to desegregation inside courthouses, the process of selecting judges