Class Notes for the Day: |
|
Starter: How different are incarceration rates for Whites, Latinos, and Blacks in the US?
1.How accurate was your prediction?
2.How accurate do you think the average American would be?
3.How surprising is this information?
4.What is the take-home point of this chart?
5.List two consequences of this huge disparity in incarceration rates for different races.
6.What questions do you have about this?
7.Why do you think there is such a huge disparity in incarceration rate for different races?
8.Explain whether you think this chart is good or bad news.
9.What steps could the US government take to change these numbers?
10.Prediction: What percent chance does a black male born in 2000 have of spending time in prison at some point in his life?
Review
Distinguish between the following:
What does it mean for the Supreme Court to set a precedent?
- majority opinion
- dissenting opinion
- concurring opinion
What does it mean for the Supreme Court to set a precedent?
Word of the Day
Adjudicate
- Define it.
- Use it in a sentence.
- Who has original jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute between a corporation and an independent regulatory agency?
Activism or Restraint?
Political discussion about the Supreme Court’s power is illustrated by the ongoing debate over judicial activism versus judicial restraint. Advocates of judicial activism argue that the federal courts must correct injustices when other branches of government fail to do so. They claim that courts are the last resort for those without power or influence to provoke new laws. Advocates of judicial restraint argue that the Supreme Court should use precedent, deference to the other branches, and the Framers’ original intent to decide cases.
Decide whether statements below best reflect an activist decision or a strict constructionist (restraint) decision. Provide a brief rationale for your answer.
Justice Harry Blackmun, in a dissenting opinion in Furman v. Georgia (1972—voided the death penalty in certain cases) stated, “Cases such as this provide for me an excruciating agony of the spirit. I yield to no one in the depth of my distaste, antipathy, and indeed abhorrence, for the death penalty. Were I a legislator I would vote against the death penalty. I do not sit, however, as a legislator—our task here is to vote pass on constitutionality of legislation that has been enacted and that is challenged. This is the sole task for judges. We should not allow our personal preferences as to the wisdom of legislative or congressional action, or our distaste for such action, guide our judicial decision.
Chief Justice Roger Taney, in the Dred Scott decision declared, “persons of color…were not included in the word citizens and they are described as a different class of persons” and could not sue in federal court based on Article IV of the Constitution.
Justice John Paul Stephens in Clinton v. New York City (line-item veto, a power held by most governors that gives them the ability to veto parts of a bill instead of solely the entire bill) argued that the law is unconstitutional in part because Article II of the Constitution states that a bill be “presented to the President of the United States…if he approve he shall sign it, if not he shall return it.” This leaves no room for another option.
Justice Harry Blackmun in Roe v. Wade said, “the Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy…however in the line of decisions the court has recognized the right of personal privacy [Griswold v. Connecticut]…that is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”
In Texas v. Johnson, Justice William Brennan found that Johnson’s conviction for flag desecration is inconsistent with the First Amendment. “The First Amendment forbids the abridgement only of ‘speech’ but we have long recognized that its protection does not end at the spoken word.”
In March 2005, after numerous appeals to the Florida state courts and an extraordinary law passed by Congress to give the federal judiciary jurisdiction in the case, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to intervene after the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals twice turned down a plea from the parents of Terry Schiavo that would have allowed for a feeding tube to be reinserted to save her life.
Justice Harry Blackmun, in a dissenting opinion in Furman v. Georgia (1972—voided the death penalty in certain cases) stated, “Cases such as this provide for me an excruciating agony of the spirit. I yield to no one in the depth of my distaste, antipathy, and indeed abhorrence, for the death penalty. Were I a legislator I would vote against the death penalty. I do not sit, however, as a legislator—our task here is to vote pass on constitutionality of legislation that has been enacted and that is challenged. This is the sole task for judges. We should not allow our personal preferences as to the wisdom of legislative or congressional action, or our distaste for such action, guide our judicial decision.
Chief Justice Roger Taney, in the Dred Scott decision declared, “persons of color…were not included in the word citizens and they are described as a different class of persons” and could not sue in federal court based on Article IV of the Constitution.
Justice John Paul Stephens in Clinton v. New York City (line-item veto, a power held by most governors that gives them the ability to veto parts of a bill instead of solely the entire bill) argued that the law is unconstitutional in part because Article II of the Constitution states that a bill be “presented to the President of the United States…if he approve he shall sign it, if not he shall return it.” This leaves no room for another option.
Justice Harry Blackmun in Roe v. Wade said, “the Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy…however in the line of decisions the court has recognized the right of personal privacy [Griswold v. Connecticut]…that is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”
In Texas v. Johnson, Justice William Brennan found that Johnson’s conviction for flag desecration is inconsistent with the First Amendment. “The First Amendment forbids the abridgement only of ‘speech’ but we have long recognized that its protection does not end at the spoken word.”
In March 2005, after numerous appeals to the Florida state courts and an extraordinary law passed by Congress to give the federal judiciary jurisdiction in the case, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to intervene after the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals twice turned down a plea from the parents of Terry Schiavo that would have allowed for a feeding tube to be reinserted to save her life.
What role does public opinion play in Supreme Court decision-making?
Divide your notebook into two columns. Provide evidence that could be used to defend each perspective.
|
SCOTUS Must Be Aware of Public Opinion
|
SCOTUS is Insulated from Public Opinion
|
Arts and Crafts Project v2.0: SCOTUS
The judicial branch is designed to be more independent of public opinion than are the legislature or the executive. Yet, the United States Supreme Court rarely deviates too far for too long from public opinion.
- Describe two ways in which the United States Supreme Court is insulated from public opinion.
- Explain how two factors work to keep the United States Supreme Court from deviating too far from public opinion.
|
|
|
Closer: How independent is the Supreme Court?
- Make a claim here!
- Support your claim with TWO pieces of accurate and relevant information.
- Use reasoning to explain why your evidence supports your claim.
- Respond to an opposing or alternative perspective.