The Supreme Court's Institution Structures Its Functions

On the surface, it seems that determining how much power courts have would be a simple task. However, history has proven this to be false. The courts have been viewed in many different ways through out the history of our country. There are three common views of court power that are important for modern scholars of the court system. Those who believe courts have little power to cause social change are said to adhere to the Constrained Court view. Those who believe courts have a great deal of power to cause social change are said to adhere to the Dynamic Court view. The final, and youngest, take on court power combines aspects of the Constrained and Dynamic views into what I shall call the Condition Dependent Court view of power.

The position of the Supreme Court in American society is quite simple: to interpret the Constitution and settle case disputes with the limitations that are binded by our law. While one perspective of the debate states that the court is unbending in their ability to make policy, while the other claims that the court breaks free from these limitations that are binded by our law and are politically dynamic in nature.These are known as The dynamic court and the constrained court are two alternative constructions of the role of U.S. courts in producing significant social reform (Rosenberg, 1991). The balance of these two views rely on the interaction between doctrinal,

In “The Adversary Judge” Frankel explains how realities of the trial create a “role conflict” between the ideally constructed impartial judge and the realistic adversary judge (Frankel, 1976). Throughout their day people play many roles, these roles are based on the expectations of the people around them and the personality of the person (Frankel, 1976). In particular, judges are expected to play the role of neutrality, intelligence, and patience. Their role is thought to be similar of an “umpire” (Frankel, 1976). It is necessary for them to be objective in order for a just and fair trial to take place. Yet, this ideal role does not occur under the pressure of realities. One reality that pushes away the idea of an “umpire” judge is the heated emotions that occur throughout the trial process. Frankel states” the courtroom explodes as people spring up at several tables shouting objections, usually loudly because they are in some haste and heat to cut off forbidden answers” (Frankel, 1976, p. 472). The attorney’s main goals throughout the trail is to ensure a win for their client leading to competitiveness between both parties. Attorneys do not want to hear they are wrong and always need to be one step ahead of their competitors. This causes the commotion and tense emotions that is usually seen in courts.

John Griffith’s thesis asserted that the English judiciary comprises of judges who as a whole are of ‘a unifying attitude of mind, a political position, to protect and conserve certain values and institutions’. Before the Judicial

Legitimacy of courts has long been an important factor in the judicial system. However, a more recent concern has been diversity. It is becoming increasingly important for the court to represent those who it serves. “The ECJ’s composition remains unreflective of the millions of black and migrant European Union citizens whom it serves”. Judgements of both the domestic courts of England and Wales along with the European Court of Justice, affect the everyday lives of all EU citizens – including those of minority and underrepresented groups. “Outcomes should not be influenced by considerations of political or financial consequences”. Independence is important as it is vital that each judge is able to decide cases solely on the evidence presented to them by the parties in court. Personal independence is always necessary to ensure that the judiciary as a whole of both the land or the community remains independent. In order for the courts to be fully independent, they must represent the diversity of the people and make decisions in accordance with the law with no other influences. With the growing influence of the government over the last century it has become increasingly important that the judiciary fulfils its responsibility to protect the public against unlawful acts of the government. What has therefore also become increasingly more important is the need for the judiciary to be completely independent from the government. The evidence suggests that the courts nowadays are not

While I accept that theoretically a judge should not consider extralegal factors when making a ruling, I cannot accept your premise that all judges rule as neutral arbiters who rely solely on precedent, Constitutional text, and original intent of the Framers. As with any other individual in public service, judges are still human beings, and thus bring with them their own prejudices, personal biases, and preconceived notions when taking the bench.

There are two kinds of court in this country. The two courts are state and federal. In this essay I️ will be briefing you on the things that they have in common and the things they don’t have in common such as behavior in the court and the way they handle the state court room.

The Supreme Court, which is often referred to as the Court of last resort,” is the highest court within our court system. Only an original ruling by the Supreme Court can change a pre-existing one. They have the authority to decide appeals on all cases taken to federal court or those that have been brought to a state court that handles federal law. Once one of the circuit courts have made a decision on a case, all parties involved in the case can choose to appeal their case to the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can decide whether or not to hear a case as where the circuit courts can not . The parties involved in the case are required to petition the court. If the petition is granted, the circuit courts will take briefings and hear arguments. If the petition is not granted, the lower court's judgment stands. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in a case. The Supreme Court oversees many types of cases such as most cases involving federal laws or regulations, international and interstate commerce, and cases involving commodaties and securities, to name a few. Where a case was filed depends on the avennue it would take in order to reach the Supreme Court. A Case can start in either the Superior Court or District Court. Cases wouls start in the district court if they involve

Article III of the U.S. Constitution grants the U.S. Supreme Court its judicial powers. Back in the day, the court used to take all cases with its primary function being to correct legal errors from lower courts; however, because of the ever increasing case loads, congress granted the Supreme Court the power to decide which cases to take. To begin with, the Supreme Court will only take cases involving substantial questions of federal law and intercircuit conflicts among federal appellate courts. All cases that show up are inspected/screened by the clerk of the court to check for procedural correctness. About one-fourth of the docket is eliminated by the clerks and is never seen by the justices. Cases usually come as either a writ for certification or as a petition for certiorari. The former is for when a lower court needs to clarify an issue, and the latter is for when a case in a lower court is being petitioned to get reviewed by the Supreme Court. In order for a case to go through, at least four of the nine judges must agree to see it. Otherwise, the case can be simply denied. Today less than one percent (around 80 cases) of the courts docket is given consideration per year. Once a case is granted, the justices hear oral arguments from the petitioner and the respondent. Following the oral arguments, the justices meet to consider each case. If they like the case than they put it in the discuss list, and if not, the case is placed in a dead list (Banks and O 'Brien 162). An

It has also been suggested that judges could use video conferencing facilities from a different location in order to deal with a civil dispute rather than be physically present. This is not without its’ own set of challenges . It is implied that a party in a trial has the right to see a judge “struggling conscientiously with the detail of a case ” which is a “feature of the court system that cannot be discarded ”. In trying to minimise the physical aspect of the judge’s role in court seems to undermine the basic fundamental human rights mentioned in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which states that parties in a trial are entitled to a “fair and public hearing...” . This is because it seeks to reinforce the aspect of the courts moving towards a more ‘impersonal ’ and ‘nonhuman ’ approach to dealing with civil disputes.

Congress has the power to change the jurisdiction of the federal court and decide what kind of cases a court can consider, court rule-making. It can set the jurisdiction of the courts and the court cannot hear a certain topic, which can include the limitation or change the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme

For us to assess how the Supreme Court determines which case they will hear, we must first analyze the structure of the supreme court and how they get appointed. The original court in set the limit of judges to 6 in 1789, but congress has since has changed that number to 9 in 1869 in which it remains to this day. There is but one Chief Justice who is the highest ranking judge, and 8 associate justices, all of which are uniquely diverse in ethnicity, religion, sex, ideology, and length of tenure.

I think the Court of Appeals comes up with decisions that seems right. The Supreme Court can review some cases, as necessary. I do not think the Court of Appeals has the intention of leaving it up to the Supreme Court since most cases are resolved in the lower courts.

Democracy is flawed and the process of judges having to campaign for their seats on the bench extends these flaws. A judiciary cannot be independent and neutral if judges have to deal with campaign fundraising. The role of money in judicial elections is expanding rapidly, $206 million is the amount raised by candidates for state judgeships in the past decade, more than double the $83 million judges raised in the 1990s (Reddick). Super PACs make an appearance with this new role of money. Information given by Super PACs is directed to the masses by filling the public sphere with attack ads and sometimes even false facts, causing these judicial campaigns to be indistinguishable from any other ordinary political campaign. Judges should be distinguishable from executives and legislators due to their need to “be and appear to be” impartial when making decisions (Dodd). This need for judges to be impartial comes from the concept of fundamental fairness called “due process.” (Brown). This equal justice under the law is only possible when we keep our judges insulated from politics and the public.

After a contentious sentencing in a high profile rape case, many people have demanded the judge be recalled. However, this raises questions over whether making the judiciary answerable to the public would lead to harsher sentences and a less legitimate justice system. Those in favor of judicial recall query whether the system has failed if judges are out of touch with public morals and victims’ suffering.