The Importance Of The Supreme Court Jurisdiction

In the case of Robert Tolan and Marian Tolan vs. Jeffrey Wayne Cotton, I will be discussing what interest me about this case. I will also deliberating on the liability and criminal liability of this case. The Tolan vs. Cotton case interests me because the United States have so many police that are brutalizing citizens. In some cases the police officers are getting away with it. After reading, reviewing, and studying this case I have learn a lot about the criminal system and laws that men and women should obey. I will explain how the nine judges on the Supreme courts all came to a verdict against the police officer Jeffrey Cotton after he shot an innocent suspect. This people

The Supreme Court is the courtroom where all the legal cases dealing with congress or the constitution go to get a final decision. The Court is currently composed of a chief justice, eight associate justices, and nine officers. Their main goal as members of the Supreme Court is to make sure everything and anything abides by the constitution. It has many powers when it comes to law and especially the constitution, but it is not overly powerful due to the other two branches of the government. Checks and balances helps keep their powers level and just as important as the executive and legislative branch powers. The Court has the ability to remove a law or refute anything that violates the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court, on average, receives around 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari every term. The Court grants and hears oral arguments for eighty cases. One case specifically was Printz v. United States. This case focused on dealing with background checks when purchasing a firearm. Jay Printz deemed the provisions to the Brady Bill unconstitutional, decided to take it to the District Courts and eventually the case ended up in the Supreme Court, where Stephen P. Halbrook fought and won the case based on a five to four ruling in favor of Printz.

The Federal Court System is one of the most essential and significant functions to help settle a matter. Much work is involved in the application of a body of rules and principals of rulings. The path the Federal Courts have to take in order to be heard by the Supreme Court is a lengthy process. Given millions of disputes every year, it becomes impossible for the Federal Courts to be heard by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has jurisdictions that limit the variety of cases that are clearly defined in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has developed specific rules that within the jurisdictions will and will not hear. The Federal Court must show they have extreme and substantial evidence in the outcome of the case. In mootness, the Federal

Judicial Review is one of the court's most important powers and arguably the most powerful one that this branch or any branch has. This is a power that allows the supreme court to make legislative and executive actions subject to review and possible invalidation. The power of Judicial Review was earned in the Supreme Court Case Marbury v. Madison. In this case it was decided that James Madison’s decisions to prevent William Marbury from taking office as justice of the peace was unconstitutional, this has extended the power and now created what is known as judicial review. This has continued to affect laws and acts presently such as in the case of United States v. Nixon when Nixon was denied the powers of absolute executive privilege due to

According to thisnation.com , Each year, the Supreme Court is asked to hear approximately five thousand cases. Because there's so much the court only handles a handful of them. The handful of them, the ones that where "selected" have a big impact on lives today. In addition, The Supreme Court has made many decisions to impact the civil rights movement : Shelly vs. Kraemer, Brown vs. of Education, Loving vs. Virginia.

The American Supreme Court is the highest court in the country. The Supreme Court has the final say in issues that have been brought to lower court’s but have been unresolved. The job of the Supreme Court is to determine if the Constitution says what the end result of an issue should be. The Supreme Court was designed to be unbiased and make it’s choices purely based on what the law says. The nine people who are appointed to the Supreme Court are called Justices. They are elected to their position for the remainder of their life or until their resignation. As a result of the tenure given to a Justice spots do not open up often at all. The President nominates the Justice based on a few factors. First off experience is required. Many of the Justices where judges in a lower court such as the Court of Appeals or had a very well respected private practice. Secondly the President often nominates someone who shares his own political ideology. If the President is a conservative it is likely that he will appoint a conservative judge to the Supreme Court. Lastly gender and ethnicity have recently become a factor in a Presidents decision. Up until 1967 all of the Justices had been white males to fix this problem Lyndon Johnson appointed Thurgood Marshall the first black Justice. Later Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Connor the first female Justice. However a presidential nomination is not enough to be a Justice. The nominee must be confirmed by the Senate also by a majority vote.

Injustice is a concept that can be defined as the violation of the rights of others, or the unfair action or treatment of an individual. Society in particular sees unjust actions all the time, and most people would even go as far as describing society as biased. Sometimes, there are specific instances that occur that can teach society as a whole a lesson of righteousness and justice; and in this case, these instances are landmark Supreme Court rulings. The Supreme Court of the United States is a powerful judiciary decider that can grant justice to someone who is in desperate need of protection. The Supreme Court cases of Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education and Roper v. Simmons have

The Supreme Court decides which cases which cases to hear and which cases not to hear in numerous amounts of ways. First and Foremost, the Supreme Court has to go through around 10,000 petitions, however only 80 are actually heard. One thing the Supreme Court is willing to hear is a case regarding a conflict of law. This means the Supreme Court will step in when a number of other courts do not agree on the conclusion so that the law can begin.

The United States has a legal system unlike any other in the world .The system is set up to have a specific role and structure .The Federal Court have certain powers, and jurisdiction of these powers allows the courts to hear particular cases .It is an important part of the who the U.S. is to have Federal Court set up as they are .Let see three ways that will answer our question: why is it important to have Federal Courts in the U.S.?

In the State of New Hampshire when you are arrested and charged with a crime, you will be arraigned by the District Court who has jurisdiction in a 24 hour time frame. Jurisdiction is determined on where the crime occurred, what the crime was, and who committed the crime. During the arraignment a plea is entered or request of a continuance, an attorney will be provided for defendants who cannot afford one on their own, bail set, and a probable cause hearing will be scheduled. If bail is set, this is to encourage the defendant to show up for any future court appearances and may issue restrictions for travel and other activities to avoid having bail revoked (Broderick & Dahar, 2008). If the defendant pleads guilty or no contest, the judge may proceed to a verdict, or the prosecutor and the defense attorney may work out a plea deal if the charge is considered minor. If it is a more serious crime, the judge will move to schedule future hearings.

The Supreme Court has presided over cases that have changed the history of the United States? The Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, and it permits Congress to decide how to organize it. The generalizations I would make about the backgrounds of the Justices, letting the American people decide this question is the reasonable approach that how long they could sit in office, and how they get appointed into office. We the people should be able to vote who hold the seats in the Supreme Courts and how long, just like we vote for the president on United States and any electoral office. They shouldn’t be allowed to serve as long as they like. We all know that once they are appointed, the Constitution states that the United States Senate

Original jurisdiction refers to where the case starts. Appellate jurisdiction means that the court reviews the decision from the other court. Meaning, if you are prosecuted for a crime, the court where the trial would be held, has the original jurisdiction. Furthermore, the US Supreme Court generally is a court of an appellate jurisdiction, but it does have original jurisdiction for cases regarding ambassadors, or other public ministers. The court that reviews the decision of the trial from the lower court, would have appellate jurisdiction. Moreover, if you lose in court you can ask a higher court, an appellate court to consider whether or not your trial followed the law correctly. If you lose in the appellate court you can ask the highest court in the land which is the United States Supreme Court. Genuine jurisdiction is different entirely from special jurisdiction. General jurisdiction has the power of the court to hear only certain types of cases, and if the amount of controversy is below a certain amount, is more times than less subject to exceptions. Courts of the general jurisdiction are often called District Courts or Superior Courts. Jurisdiction may also be referred to the origin of the court's authority. A court may be designated either as a court of general jurisdiction or as a court of special jurisdiction. A court of general

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Burns is important because the case involves a critical shift in Canada’s approach to extradition in cases involving capital punishment. In “effectively overruling” the decisions in Kindler and Ng, the Burns verdict now means that almost all extraditions from Canada that do not contain assurances that the death penalty will not be imposed violate the principles of fundamental justice. In that respect, “in all but exceptional cases” any exercise of the Minister’s discretion that purports to grant an unconditional extradition in light of a capital sentence is void under s. 7 of the Charter. This ruling now shifts Canada’s approach to death penalty extradition in line with that of most European

case can go t the Supreme Court.This paper will also identify the merits of a case that can lead to

The Supreme Court is to interpret the constitution and the constitutionality of the laws, not to implement public policy. Implementing policies and laws is the job of congress, not the courts. The states should decide what the legal definition of marriage should or should not be. It is a matter dealing with the everyday lives of others. That responsibility is given to the states, which we have seen in the textbook. Congress, not the Supreme Court, makes laws and it is up to the states to put them into practice. This is why I believe the Supreme Court overstepped its authority.