Transcript American Government and Organization PS1301-164 Wednesday, 22 October

American Government and
Organization
PS1301-164
Wednesday, 22 October
Outline


Structure
Power of the Courts – Judicial Review

Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Marbury v. Madison



In a separate case decided a week earlier, Marshall
created the foundation of the Court’s power.
In Marbury, Marshall declared that Madison should
have delivered the commission to Marbury, but then
held that the section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that
gave the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of
mandamus exceeded the authority allotted the Court
under the Constitution, and was therefore null and
void.
Thus he was able to chastise the Jeffersonians and
yet not create a situation in which a court order
would be flouted.
The Structure of the Federal Judiciary



Only the Supreme Court is explicitly
mentioned in the Constitution.
nature of the judiciary beyond the
Supreme Court deferred to Congress.
Judiciary Act of 1789 - created the
federal judiciary.
The Structure of the Federal Judiciary


The federal judiciary is organized as a
three-layered pyramid.
Base: 94 district courts staffed by 632
justices.


Every state has at least one district court;
the three largest states have four.
These trial courts deal with three types of
cases: criminal, civil, and public law.
The Structure of the Federal Judiciary




Above the district courts are thirteen courts
of appeals, administered by 179 judges,
who generally sit in three-judge panels.
Eleven separate geographic regions
(circuits) cover the fifty states.
A twelfth circuit is assigned to the District of
Columbia.
A thirteenth, called the United States Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, has a
nationwide jurisdiction and deals mostly with
federal policies.
The Structure of the Federal Judiciary


The Supreme Court is the court of
final appeal.
Under its appellate jurisdiction, the
Court may hear cases appealed
from the lower courts or directly
from the highest state courts when
an important constitutional
question is in dispute.
The Structure of the Federal Judiciary


The Supreme Court’s original
jurisdiction (where it acts as the trial
court) pertains to all cases “affecting
Ambassadors, other public Ministers
and Consuls, and those in which a
State shall be a party.”
In 200 years, the Court has heard only
160 cases under its original
jurisdiction.
Managing the Caseload:
Strategy and Tactics
The federal courts system has a
tremendous caseload.
 In 2001 the district courts handled
approximately 314,000 criminal
and civil cases, and the appeals
courts more than 57,000.
 The Supreme Court decides fewer
than 100 cases annually.

Managing the Caseload:
Strategy and Tactics


Court greater discretion to choose the
cases it reviews (since 1925).
Litigants must file a writ of certiorari,
requesting that the S.C. Court order a
lower court to send it the records of the
trial in question.
Managing the Caseload:
Strategy and Tactics



How does it determine which it will
review? When to issue a writ?
Rule of Four -- four of the nine justices
must favor hearing a case for certiorari
to be granted.
Justices can hire up to four clerks to
help them assess the requests for
review.
Which Cases Reach the Supreme
Court ?

a subjective process, but certain factor increase a
case’s chances
o
o
o
o
when two lower courts are in disagreement
when a lower court’s ruling conflicts with an existing
Supreme Court ruling
when the highest state court holds a federal law invalid, or
upholds a state law that has been challenged as violating a
federal law
when a federal court holds an act of Congress
unconstitutional
Types of court decisions
opinion
o
o
o
unanimous
majority
concurring
dissenting
affirm
reverse
remand
Ways in Which Courts Make
Policy
judicial review – the power of the courts to
declare the acts of governmental officials
unconstitutional
judicial activism – taking a broad view of the
Constitution and using power to direct policy
towards a desired goal
judicial restraint – rarely using judicial review
and limiting judicial action in the policy
process
Checks on the Judiciary – an unelected
branch…
Executive Checks
- judicial implementation
- appointments
Legislative Checks
- Appropriation of funds to carry out rulings
- Constitutional amendments
- Amending laws to overturn court’s rulings
Public Opinion
- Sometimes can ignore decisions
- pressure for non-enforcement
- influence judicial opinions
Judicial Self-Restraint
- narrow focus of judicial questions
- stare decisis
- tradition of restraint
TEXAS STATE COURTS
Selection of Judges

Partisan Elections
Non-partisan elections
 Merit and retention
 Appointment


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/s
hows/justice/etc/video.html
Judicial Elections in Texas

Code of Judicial Conduct:
permits judges and candidates for judicial
office to personally solicit funds for
appropriate campaign expenses.
 Under a 2003 reform, Texas politicians
and political committees had to report this
“cash on hand” for the first time on
January 15, 2004.

Cash on Hand
12/31/2003
Faces '04
Electi
on?
Office
Candidate Name
Governor
Rick
Perry
Lt. Governor
David H.
Dewhurst
Attorney General
Greg
Abbott
$1,334,334
Comptroller
Carole
Strayhorn
$2,770,387
Supreme Court
Thomas R. Phillips
Supreme Court
Jesse W.
Supreme Court
Michael H. Schneider
Supreme Court
Steven W.
Supreme Court
Wallace B. Jefferson
Supreme Court
Harriet
O'Neill
$232,750
Supreme Court
Priscilla
Owen
$56,557
Supreme Court
Nathan
Hecht
$42,006
Supreme Court
Scott
Brister
$153,282
Yes
$9,892,988
7
$3,306,720
Wainwright
Smith
$ 411,974
$17
$73,134
$110,216
$32,187
Total
Yes
$49,145
Yes
Texas's code of judicial conduct, judicial
candidates shall not:




Make pledges or promises of conduct in
office regarding pending or impending cases,
Knowingly or recklessly misrepresent the
identity, qualifications, present position, or
other fact concerning themselves or their
opponents.
Publicly comment about pending or
impending proceedings
U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Republican
Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765
1995 Judicial Campaign
Fairness Act

Contributions
Supreme court, criminal appeals 5,000
limit
 All other judicial candidates 1,000-5,000
(population dependent)


Total amount accepted from PACs
Sc, cca accept up to $300,000 total
 Court of appeal 52,5000-75,000 total


Voluntary expenditure limits
Reforms


Problems?
Move to appointive system?
Recent Reforms


1995 The Judicial Campaign Fairness
Act (SB 94)
2001 HB 59 – Secretary of State can
distribute vote information guide for
judicial elections.
Failed Reforms

Move to appointive or appoint/vote to retain
system





1995 (passed senate, failed house)
1997 stalled in senate (nonpartisan elections,
appoint appellate judges)
1999 appt. retention died in house committee
2001 gubernatorial appointment, approved by
committee in both houses but session ended
2003 similar to 2001