Judiciary Synthesis

The Federal Judiciary consists of a few different types of courts. There is not only the Supreme Court but also the U.S District Courts, the U.S Court of Appeals, Special U.S courts, and state courts. Jurisdiction is the court's authority to hear a case of a certain type, with original jurisdiction being the authority to be the first court to hear a case, includes legal disputes involving foreign diplomats and cases in which the opposing parties are state governments and appellate jurisdiction-authority to review cases that have already been heard in lower courts and are appealed to a higher court by the losing party, determine whether a trial court has acted in the accord with applicable law.

When selecting and deciding cases, the Supreme Court has a few powers to aid in its job. Judicial review, established from Marbury v. Madison, gives the Supreme Court the right to deem whether if the actions of Congress and the president are unconstitutional. Such a power is used sparingly, as using it to often would break down the progress of the branches of government. The Supreme Court also has the right to establish precedents, judicial decisions that set the rule for setting subsequent cases of a similar kind. When a party loses in a lower court, it can send the case to Supreme Court with the approval of four justices. The Court issues a writ of certiorari, a request for the lower court to submit a record of the case to the Supreme Court. Although many parties apply or a certiorari each year, they are sparingly granted.

There are a few different types of courts in American politics. U.S District Courts act as the first line to tend to all criminal and civil cases, basically chief trait courts of the federal system. Cases appealed from district court later go to U.S Courts of Appeals, where appellates have the possible chance for reversal of the previous decision made in district courts. However the Supreme Court sees very few cases, less than one percent of all cases being those from appeal courts. There are also a few Special U.S Courts that serve specific purposes. Some example include the U.S Claims Court which looks over cases where the U.S government is being sued for damages and the U.S Court of Military Appeals which looks over appeals of military courts-martial.

The president holds the every right to appoint the court justices he/she feels are suited for the job. For Supreme Court justices, there are many strict criteria to follow. Presidents look for nominees who both share their political philosophy and are easily accepted by others. Nominees are judged by their legal community and interested groups, reported by the media, go through an extensive background check by FBI, and must receive approval of a Senate majority. About 20% of presidential nominees to the SC have been rejected by the Senate on grounds of judicial qualifications, political views, personal ethics, or partisanship. Some of the few things that help guarantee confirmation including having a clean personal record, strong professional record, sharing the same party as the president, and ability to demonstrate temperament and intellect of a Supreme Court justice. For lower court nominees, they are chosen by the attorney general, who in turn takes suggestions from the House and Senate. If a senator from a state with a vacancy arises (and the senator is part of the same party as the president), that senator is a low court nominee. This is the tradition of senatorial courtesy.

There is a common trend in personal background for judicial appointees. Most federal judges already have prior judicial experience, as such individuals would be most preferable for the federal bench. Within the federal bench is a dominating majority of overrepresented white males, but also a gradually growing minority representing group members such as women (appointed by Democrats mainly). Today, three out of the nine supreme court justices are women (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan). Thurgood Marshall became the first black justice in 1967 while Antonin Scalia became the first one of Italian descent in 1986.

Through the process of judicial decision making, there are many legal restrictions on judicial decision. The facts of a particular case limit judicial action, and they are known as the relevant circumstances of a legal dispute or offense. A judge must treat a murder case with the same accepted definitions and penalties for any murder case. Since the facts set up the general circle of limitations for cases, murder cases, for example, cannot simply be used to promote something completely unrelated to the current circumstances, such as free speech rights. The great limitation courts must follow is law itself, such as the Constitution, legislative statures, and legal precedents. The Constitution itself is known as the “law of the land”, and judges and justices are sworn to uphold it. For example, the Constitution prohibits states from printing their money and if they were to do so anyway, judges would have every right to rule against it. Other than constitutional law, there is also statutory law and administrative law. Statutory is a legislative/written version of the law, while administrative is actually set rules, regulations, and judgments made by the agencies to achieve the goals of the statutory law. In the precedent of the U.S legal system holds that any principles of law established in a previous cases must be applied in later similar cases.

Although judges have their limitations when making decisions and must abide by the law, their job still requires a great deal of personal judgment and belief. All throughout history, courts have exerted their personal insights are various controversial issues, such as when deeming laws enacted by Congress as unconstitutional or on sympathetic cases such as abortion. With more and more social and economic changes emerging, issues such as environmental pollution are starting to become the topic of several court cases.

In order to determine what conclusion to make for cases, judges alternate between four different theory models to follow. The first two, originalism and living constitution apply to how the Constitution should be interpreted. Originalism theory, holds that the Constitution should be interpreted in a way that “any reasonable person would have interpreted it”. Although this theory may sound fair, it is also very hard to determine what exactly the writers of the Constitution themselves were thinking and interpreting when making the Constitution. The living constitution theory on the other hand, interprets the Constitution’s broad language and basic principles to be purposefully used for adapting and accommodating different cases. Even the preamble of the 1787 Constitutional Convention's Committee of Detail states the Constitution “ought to be accommodated to times and events”. The only problem with this theory is that judges can promote personal, preferable views.

The doctrines of judicial restraint and judicial activism describe what a judge should abide to. Judicial restraint states that judges should defer to the precedent and decisions made by legislatures. While the elected lawmakers determine the law, judges really only have the power to apply it. On the other hand, judicial activism states that judges have every right to interpret the Constitution, statues, and precedents in light of fundamental principle.

The judiciary's exact length of authority is hard to determine or approximate. The judiciary is not a final branch of authority checking on political power, but rather, a coequal branch of government with the responsibility to to protect individual rights and constrain political authority. In the end, everything depends on how much courts assert their authority in cases.