Free Essay

Supreme Court

In:

Submitted By something760
Words 4621
Pages 19
A supreme court is the highest court within the hierarchy of many legal jurisdictions. Other descriptions for such courts include court of last resort, instance court, judgment court, apex court, and highest court of appeal. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts.
However, not all highest courts are named as such. Civil law states do not tend to have singular highest courts. Additionally, the highest court in some jurisdictions is not named the "Supreme Court", for example, the High Court of Australia; this is because decisions by the High Court could formerly be appealed to the Privy Council. In a few places, the court named the "Supreme Court" is not in fact the highest court; examples include the New York Supreme Court, which is superseded by the New York Court of Appeals, and the former Supreme Court of Judicature of England and Wales.
Some countries have multiple "supreme courts" whose respective jurisdictions have different geographical extents, or which are restricted to particular areas of law. In particular, countries with a federal system of government typically have both a federal supreme court, and supreme courts for each member state, with the former having jurisdiction over the latter only to the extent that the federal constitution extends federal law over state law. Jurisdictions with a civil law system often have a hierarchy of administrative courts separate from the ordinary courts, headed by a supreme administrative court as it the case in the Netherlands. A number of jurisdictions also follow the "Austrian" model of a separate constitutional court .
Within the British Empire, the highest court within a colony was often called the "Supreme Court", even though appeals could be made from that court to the United Kingdom's Privy Council . A number of Commonwealth jurisdictions retain this system, but many others have reconstituted their own highest court as a court of last resort, with the right of appeal to the Privy Council being abolished.
In jurisdictions using a common law system, the doctrine of stare decisis applies, whereby the principles applied by the supreme court in its decisions are binding upon all lower courts; this is intended to apply a uniform interpretation and implementation of the law. In civil law jurisdictions the doctrine of stare decisis is not generally considered to apply, so the decisions of the supreme court are not necessarily binding beyond the immediate case before it; however, in practice the decisions of the supreme court usually provide a very strong precedent, or jurisprudence constante, for both itself and all lower courts.
Common law jurisdictions
Australia
In Australia, the High Court of Australia became the court of last resort with the passing of the Australia Act in 1986. This act abolished the last rights of appeal to the Privy Council. Each state and territory has its own Supreme Court, which is the highest court in that state/territory. This leads to some confusion among those from other jurisdictions as the term "supreme court" seems to refer to the court of last resort. The reason that the High Court of Australia is not named the "supreme court" is purely historical. Before the federation of the Australian colonies as states of Australia, each colony had its own independent judicial system with a supreme court as the highest court physically within the colony . On federation, the constitution provided for the establishment of a federal "supreme court", to be named the "High Court" which could hear appeals from the state Supreme Courts. With the exception of the Australian Capital Territory, each state's Supreme Court is divided into two divisions: the Trial Division and the Court of Appeal. Appeals from the ACT Supreme Court are heard in the High Court of Australia. The current Chief Justice of the High Court is Robert French.
Bangladesh
The Supreme Court of Bangladesh is created by the provisions of the Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972. There are two Divisions of the Supreme Court, i.e. Appellate Division and High Court Division. Appellate Division is the highest Court of Appeal and usually does not exercise the powers of a court of first instance. Whereas, the High Court Division is a Court of first instance in company and admiralty matters. The Supreme Court of Bangladesh is the protector and guardian of Bangladesh Constitution.
The judgements of Appellate Division of Bangladesh Supreme Court are accessible in the Chancery Law Chronicles.
Canada
In Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada was established in 1875 but only became the highest court in the country in 1949 when the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was abolished. This court hears appeals of decisions made by courts of appeal from the provinces and territories and appeals of decisions made by the Federal Court of Appeal. The court's decisions are final and binding on the federal courts and the courts from all provinces and territories. The title "Supreme" can be confusing because, for example, The Supreme Court of British Columbia does not have the final say and controversial cases heard there often get appealed in higher courts - it is in fact one of the lower courts in such a process.
Hong Kong
In Hong Kong, the Supreme Court of Hong Kong was the final court of appeal during its colonial times which ended with transfer of sovereignty in 1997. The final adjudication power, as in any other British Colonies, rested with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, United Kingdom. Now the power of final adjudication is vested in the Court of Final Appeal created in 1997. Under the Basic Law, its constitution, the territory remains a common law jurisdiction. Consequently, judges from other common law jurisdictions can be recruited and continue to serve in the judiciary according to Article 92 of the Basic Law. On the other hand, the power of interpretation of the Basic Law itself is vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress in Beijing, and the courts are authorised to interpret the Basic Law when trying cases, in accordance with Article 158 of the Basic Law. This arrangement became controversial in light of the right of abode issue in 1999, raising concerns for judicial independence.
India
In India, the Supreme Court of India was created on January 28, 1950 after adoption of the Constitution.
Article 141 of the Constitution of India states that the law declared by Supreme Court is to be binding on all Courts within the territory of India. It is the highest court in India and has ultimate judicial authority to interpret the Constitution and decide questions of national law . The Supreme Court is also vested with the power of judicial review to ensure the application of the rule of law.
Note that within the constitutional framework of India, Jammu and Kashmir has a special status vis-a-vis the other states of India. Article 370 of the Constitution of India carves out certain exceptions for J&K. However, the Constitution Order 1954 makes Article 141 applicable to the state of J&K and hence law declared by the Supreme Court of India is equally applicable to all courts of J&K including the High Court.
Ireland
The Supreme Court is the highest court in Ireland. It has authority to interpret the constitution, and strike down laws and activities of the state that it finds to be unconstitutional. It is also the highest authority in the interpretation of the law. Constitutionally it must have authority to interpret the constitution but its further appellate jurisdiction from lower courts is defined by law. The Irish Supreme Court consists of its presiding member, the Chief Justice, and seven other judges. Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President in accordance with the binding advice of the Government. The Supreme Court sits in the Four Courts in Dublin.
Israel
Israel's Supreme Court is at the head of the court system in the State of Israel. It is the highest judicial instance. The Supreme Court sits in Jerusalem. The area of its jurisdiction is the entire State. A ruling of the Supreme Court is binding upon every court, other than the Supreme Court itself. The Israeli supreme court is both an appellate court and the high court of justice. As an appellate court, the Supreme Court considers cases on appeal on judgments and other decisions of the District Courts. It also considers appeals on judicial and quasi-judicial decisions of various kinds, such as matters relating to the legality of Knesset elections and disciplinary rulings of the Bar Association. As the High Court of Justice, the Supreme Court rules as a court of first instance, primarily in matters regarding the legality of decisions of State authorities: Government decisions, those of local authorities and other bodies and persons performing public functions under the law, and direct challenges to the constitutionality of laws enacted by the Knesset. The court has broad discretionary authority to rule on matters in which it considers it necessary to grant relief in the interests of justice, and which are not within the jurisdiction of another court or tribunal. The High Court of Justice grants relief through orders such as injunction, mandamus and Habeas Corpus, as well as through declaratory judgments. The Supreme Court can also sit at a further hearing on its own judgment. In a matter on which the Supreme Court has ruled - whether as a court of appeals or as the High Court of Justice - with a panel of three or more justices, it may rule at a further hearing with a panel of a larger number of justices. A further hearing may be held if the Supreme Court makes a ruling inconsistent with a previous ruling or if the Court deems that the importance, difficulty or novelty of a ruling of the Court justifies such hearing. The Supreme Court also holds the unique power of being able to order "trial de novo" .
Nauru
In Nauru, there is no single highest court for all types of cases. The Supreme Court has final jurisdiction on constitutional matters, but any other case may be appealed further to the Appellate Court. In addition, an agreement between Nauru and Australia in 1976 provides for appeals from the Supreme Court of Nauru to the High Court of Australia in both criminal and civil cases, with the notable exception of constitutional cases.
New Zealand
In New Zealand, the right of appeal to the Privy Council was abolished following the passing of the Supreme Court Act . A right of appeal to the Privy Council remains for criminal cases which were decided before the Supreme Court was created but it is likely that the successful appeal by Mark Lundy at the Privy Council will prove to be the last appeal to the Board by a New Zealander.
The new Supreme Court of New Zealand was officially established at the beginning of 2004, although it did not come into operation until July. The High Court of New Zealand was until 1980 known as the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has a purely appellate jurisdiction and hears appeals from the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. In some cases, an appeal may be removed directly to the Supreme Court from the High Court. For certain cases, particularly cases which commenced in the District Court, a lower court may be the court of final jurisdiction.
Pakistan
The Supreme Court has been the apex court for Pakistan since the declaration of the republic in 1956 . The Supreme Court has the final say on matters of constitutional law, federal law or on matters of mixed federal and provincial competence. It can hear appeals on matters of provincial competence only if a matter of a constitutional nature is raised.
With respect to Pakistan's territories the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is rather limited and varies from territory to territory; it can hear appeals only of a constitutional nature from FATA and Northern Areas, while ICT generally functions the same as provinces. Azad Kashmir has its own courts system and the constitution of Pakistan does not apply to it as such; appeals from Azad Kashmir relate to its relationship with Pakistan.
The provinces have their own courts system, with the High Court as the apex court, except insofar as where an appeal can go to the Supreme Court as mentioned above.
United Kingdom
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom was established by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 with effect from 1 October 2009 and assumed the judicial functions of the House of Lords, which include final appellate jurisdiction in civil cases throughout the UK, and in criminal cases in Northern Ireland, England and Wales. In the United Kingdom, there are separate legislatures with limited devolved powers over Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland: devolution issues under the Scotland Act 1998, Government of Wales Act and Northern Ireland Act were transferred from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to the new Supreme Court by the Constitutional Reform Act.
In respect of Community Law the Supreme Court is subject to the decisions of the European Court of Justice. Since there can be no appeal from the Supreme Court, there is an interlocutory procedure by which the Supreme Court may refer to the European Court questions of European law which arise in cases before it, and obtain a definitive ruling before the Supreme Court gives its judgment.
The Supreme Court shares its members and accommodation at the Middlesex Guildhall with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which hears final appeals from certain smaller Commonwealth countries, admiralty cases, and certain appeals from the ecclesiastical courts and statutory private jurisdictions, such as professional and academic bodies.
.
United States
The Supreme Court of the United States, established in 1789, is the highest Federal court in the United States, with powers of judicial review first asserted in Calder v. Bull in Justice Iredell's dissenting opinion. The power was later given binding authority by Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison . There are currently nine seats on the US Supreme Court.
Each U.S. state has a state supreme court, which is the highest authority interpreting that state's law and administering that state's judiciary. Two states, Oklahoma and Texas, each have two separate highest courts that respectively specialize in criminal cases and civil cases. Although Delaware has a specialized court, the Court of Chancery, to hear cases in equity, it is not a supreme court because the Delaware Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over it.
The titles of state supreme court vary, which can cause confusion between jurisdictions because one state may use a name for its highest court that another uses for a lower court. In New York, Maryland, and the District of Columbia the highest court is called the Court of Appeals, a name used by many states for their intermediate appellate courts. Further, trial courts of general jurisdiction in New York are called the Supreme Court, and the intermediate appellate court is called the Supreme Court, Appellate Division. In West Virginia, the highest court of the state is the Supreme Court of Appeals. In Maine and Massachusetts the highest court is styled the "Supreme Judicial Court"; the last is the oldest appellate court of continuous operation in the Western Hemisphere.
Civil law jurisdictions
The Roman law and the Corpus Juris Civilis are generally held to be the historical model for civil law. From the late 18th century onwards, civil law jurisdictions began to codify their laws, most of all in civil codes.
Austria
In Austria, the Austrian Constitution of 1920 introduced judicial review of legislative acts for their constitutionality. This function is performed by the Constitutional Court, which is also charged with the review of administrative acts on whether they violate constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Other than that, administrative acts are reviewed by the Administrative Court . The Supreme Court ), stands at the top of Austria's system of "ordinary courts" as the final instance in issues of private law and criminal law.
Brazil
In Brazil, the Supreme Federal Tribunal is the highest court. It is both the constitutional court and the court of last resort in Brazilian law. It only reviews cases that may be unconstitutional or final habeas corpus pleads for criminal cases. It also judges, in original jurisdiction, cases involving members of congress, senators, ministers of state, members of the high courts and the President and Vice-President of the Republic. The Superior Court of Justice reviews State and Federal Circuit courts decisions for civil law and criminal law cases, when dealing with federal law or conflicting rulings. The Superior Labour Tribunal reviews cases involving labour law. The Superior Electoral Tribunal is the court of last resort of electoral law, and also oversees general elections. The Superior Military Tribunal is the highest court in matters of federal military law.
Republic of China
In the Republic of China, there are three different courts of last resort:
Supreme Court of the Republic of China : civil and criminal cases.
Supreme Administrative Court of the Republic of China : executive cases.
Council of Grand Justices : interpretation of the Constitution, interpretation of laws and regulations, dissolution of political parties in violation of the Constitution, trial of impeachments against the President or Vice President.
The Council of Grand Justices, consisting of 15 justices and mainly dealing with constitutional issues, is the counterpart of constitutional courts in some countries.
All three courts are directly under the Judicial Yuan, whose president also serves as Chief Justice in the Council of Grand Justices.
Croatia
In Croatia, the supreme jurisdiction is given to the Supreme Court, which secures a uniform application of laws. The Constitutional Court exists to verify constitutionality of laws and regulations, as well as decide on individual complaints on decisions on governmental bodies. It also decides on jurisdictional disputes between the legislative, executive and judicial branches.
Denmark
In Denmark, all ordinary courts have original jurisdiction to hear all types of cases, including cases of a constitutional or administrative nature. As a result, there exists no special constitutional court, and therefore final jurisdiction is vested with the Danish Supreme Court which was established 14 February 1661 by king Frederik III.
France
In France, supreme appellate jurisdiction is divided among three judicial bodies: for judicial cases, i.e., civil or criminal matters: Court of Cassation for administrative cases: Council of State constitutional challenges of statutory laws: Constitutional Council
When there is jurisdictional dispute between judicial and administrative courts: the Court of Arbitration, which is empanelled half from the Court of Cassation and half from the Council of State and presided over by the Minister of Justice, is called together to settle the dispute or hand down a final decision.
The High Court exists only to impeach the President of the French Republic in case of "breach of his duties patently incompatible with his continuing in office". Since a constitutional amendment of 2007, the French Constitution states that the High Court is composed of all members of both Houses of Parliament. As of 2012, it has never been convened.
Germany
In Germany, there is no single supreme court.
Final interpretation of the German Constitution, the Grundgesetz, is the task of the Bundesverfassungsgericht, which is the de facto highest German court as it can declare federal and state legislation immediately ineffective, and has the power to overrule decisions of all other federal courts despite not being a regular court of appeals in the German court system.
In civil and criminal cases, the Bundesgerichtshof is at the top of the hierarchy of courts. The other branches of the German judicial system each have their own appellate systems, each topped by a supreme court; these are the Bundessozialgericht for social security, the Bundesarbeitsgericht for employment and labour, the Bundesfinanzhof for taxation, and the Bundesverwaltungsgericht for administrative law. The so-called Gemeinsamer Senat der Obersten Gerichtshöfe, is not a supreme court in itself, but an ad-hoc body that is convened only in when one supreme court intends to diverge from another supreme court's legal opinion. As the courts have well-defined areas of responsibility, this situation rarely arises, and so the Joint Senate only gathers rather rarely, and only to consider matters which are mostly definitory.
The Netherlands
In the Netherlands, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands is the highest. Its decisions, known as "arresten", are absolutely final. The court is banned from testing legislation against the constitution, pursuant to the principle of the sovereignty of the States-General; the court can, however, test legislation against treaties. Also, the ordinary courts in the Netherlands, including the Hoge Raad, do not deal with administrative law, which is dealt with in separate administrative courts, the highest of which is the Council of State
Iceland
The Supreme Court of Iceland was founded under Act No. 22/1919 and held its first session on 16 February 1920. The Court holds the highest judicial power in Iceland, where the court system has two levels.
Italy
Italy follows the French system of different supreme courts.
The Italian court of last resort for most disputes is the Corte Suprema di Cassazione. There is also a separate constitutional court, the Corte costituzionale, which has a duty of judicial review, and which can strike down legislation as being in conflict with the Constitution.
Japan
In Japan, the Supreme Court of Japan is called, located in Chiyoda, Tokyo, and is the highest court in Japan. It has ultimate judicial authority within Japan to interpret the Constitution and decide questions of national law . It has the power of judicial review .
Luxembourg
In Luxembourg, challenges on the conformity of the law to the Constitution are brought before the Cour Constitutionnelle . — The most used and common procedure to present these challenges is by way of the "question préjudicielle" . The Court of last resort for civil and criminal proceedings is the "Cour de Cassation".
For administrative proceedings the highest court is the "Cour Administrative" .
Macau
The supreme court of Macau is the Court of Final Appeal .
Philippines
While the Philippines is generally considered a civil law nation, its Supreme Court is heavily modelled after the American Supreme Court. This can be attributed to the fact that the Philippines was colonized by both Spain and the United States, and the system of laws of both nations strongly influenced the development of Philippine laws and jurisprudence. Even as the body of Philippine laws remain mostly codified, the Philippine Civil Code expressly recognizes that decisions of the Supreme Court "form part of the law of the land", belonging to the same class as statutes. The 1987 Philippine Constitution also explicitly grants to the Supreme Court the power of judicial review over laws and executive actions. The Supreme Court is composed of 1 Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices. The court sits either en banc or in divisions, depending on the nature of the case to be decided.
Portugal
In Portugal, there are several supreme courts, each with a specific jurisdition:
The Supreme Court of Justice - for judicial matters;
The Constitutional Court - for the constitutional matters;
The Supreme Administrative Court - for administrative and fiscal matters;
The Court of Auditors - for auditing the public expenditure.
Scotland
Founded by papal bull in 1532, the Court of Session is the supreme civil court of Scotland, and the High Court of Justiciary is the supreme criminal court. However, the absolute highest court is the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.
Spain
Spanish Supreme Court is the highest court for all cases in Spain . Only those cases related to human rights can be appealed at the Constitutional Court .
In Spain, high courts cannot create binding precedents; however, lower rank courts usually observe Supreme Court interpretations. In most private law cases, two Supreme Court judgements supporting a claim are needed to appeal at the Supreme Court.
Five sections form the Spanish Supreme court:
Section one judges private law cases .
Section two decides about criminal appeals.
Section three judges administrative cases and controls government normative powers.
Section four is dedicated to labour law.
Section five is dedicated to military justice.
Sweden
In Sweden, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court respectively function as the highest courts of the land. The Supreme Administrative Court considers cases concerning disputes between individuals and administrative organs, as well as disputes among administrative organs, while the Supreme Court considers all other cases. The judges are appointed by the Government. In most cases, the Supreme Courts will only grant leave to appeal a case if the case involves setting a precedent in the interpretation of the law. Exceptions are issues where the Supreme Court is the court of first instance. Such cases include an application for a retrial of a criminal case in the light of new evidence, and prosecutions made against an incumbent minister of the Government for severe neglect of duty. If a lower court has to try a case which involves a question where there is no settled interpretation of the law, it can also refer the question to the relevant Supreme Court for an answer.
Switzerland
In Switzerland, the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland is the final court of appeals. Due to Switzerland's system of direct democracy, it has no authority to review the constitutionality of federal statutes, but the people can strike down a proposed law by referendum. According to settled case law, however, the Court is authorised to review the compliance of all Swiss law with certain categories of international law, especially the European Convention of Human Rights.
Other civil law jurisdictions
For Honduras, see Supreme Court of Honduras.
For Peru see Supreme Court of Peru.
For Poland, see Supreme Court of the Republic of Poland.
For Uganda, see Supreme Court of Uganda
For Ukraine, see Supreme Court of Ukraine.
Sri Lanka
In Sri Lanka, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka was created in 1972 after the adoption of a new Constitution. The Supreme Court is the highest and final superior court of record and is empowered to exercise its powers, subject to the provisions of the Constitution. The court rulings take precedence over all lower Courts. The Sri Lanka judicial system is complex blend of both common-law and civil-law. In some cases such as capital punishment, the decision may be passed on to the President of the Republic for clemency petitions. However, when there is 2/3 majority in the parliament in favour of president, the supreme court and its judges' powers become nullified as they could be fired from their positions according to the Constitution, if the president wants. Therefore, in such situations, Civil law empowerment vanishes.
South Africa
In South Africa, the Supreme Court of Appeal was created in 1994 and replaced the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa as the highest court of appeal in non-constitutional matters. The SAC is subordinate to the Constitutional Court, which is the highest court in matters involving the interpretation of the Constitution.
Soviet-model jurisdictions
In most nations with constitutions modelled after the Soviet Union, the legislature was given the power of being the court of last resort. In the People's Republic of China, the final power to interpret the law is vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress . This power includes the power to interpret the basic laws of Hong Kong and Macau, the constitutional documents of the two special administrative regions which are common law and Portuguese-based legal system jurisdictions respectively. This power is a legislative power and not a judicial one in that an interpretation by the NPCSC does not affect cases which have already been decided.

Similar Documents

Free Essay

The Supreme Court

...The Supreme Court The purpose of the Supreme Court is to review or address cases that involve issues on a federal level or of constitutional law, just as appellate courts hear cases on a state level. Their responsibilities include deciding how to apply the principles of constitutional law to new matters and issues that arise in today’s day to day legal process; they also play the role of the “parent” to lower federal appellate courts when their decisions on legal issues are contradicting to one another, overlap, goes against constitutional rights, or allows room for confusion as to whose decision takes precedent. Bottom line the purpose of the Supreme Court is to provide the rules and statues for state level courts to abide by when they involve federal or constitutional matters, making them the highest court of law. The Supreme Court is made up of nine judges or justices of the peace that are appointed by the President of the United States and the advice of the senate, their titles include one chief and eight associates that serve a life term. By law there are no particular requirements, educational experience or background, or law degrees necessary to become a Supreme Court judge, but because the advice of senate is used by the President of the United States to select the justices their experience and background is taken into consideration. These nine justices makeup what is considered a full court, however it only takes six justices to makeup a lawful bench and in some circumstances...

Words: 951 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

The Supreme Court

...The Supreme Court Leshea Hicks Professor Dorothy Sliben LEG420 January 22, 2012 The United States Supreme Court is the last level at the federal level. It is also the only court mentioned in the Constitution. “The constitution states, “the judicial power of the United States shall be in one supreme court”, and Congress may ordain and establish from time to time” (Champion, Hartley & Rabe, 2008). The Supreme Court consists of eight associate justices and one chief justice. Each year the court hears a limited amount of cases if requested. They usually meet on the first Monday in October thru late June; the justices typically meet three times per week to hear cases. They meet also to decide which cases they will take for each session. Most cases brought before the Supreme Court started at the federal or state level, and usually involve constitutional issues, such as immigration laws, abortion, and same sex marriages. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to monitor the actions of the President and Congress. The Supreme Court can advise the President of wrongdoings considered unconstitutional. The court has the power to veto a law passed by Congress, when it violates the constitution. “The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress and the highest law of the Constitution” (“Role of the,” ). The Supreme Court has two main functions: First, to interpret and explain congressional enactments in cases. They interpret state laws and...

Words: 678 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

California Supreme Court

...Court system of California is the largest systems about 12% of the U.S population are served. Major cases California courts starts in trail courts which are present in each and every 58 counties of California State. These courts hear criminal, civil, family, juvenile, probate, mental health and traffic cases. Before courts of appeal Supreme Court review most of the cases. Supreme Court is the highest Court in the California and reviews decisions of the court of appeal in order to solve the conflicts and settle the law questions. California Supreme Court has one Chief Justice and six Associate Justices. It has 7907 fillings and about eighty five written opinions. Each Justice is appointed by Governor. The decision of Supreme Court provides guidance for the lower courts which shows effects on the residents of California. Supreme Court has decisions to decide which decisions can be review but is definitely want to review all the cases where death penalty is imposed. Supreme Court can also review the decisions of state Bar of California regarding the suspension of judges for misconduct. All the decisions of Supreme Court are in the form of written and available for public. They are made accessible through websites and official reports. Supreme Court functions for the development of law which are applied by trial and appellate courts. Supreme Courts reviews cases which will enable it to settle legal questions and to see that the law is uniformly applied throughout the state. Normally...

Words: 295 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Supreme Court Justices

...What's the Supreme Court of the United States? The Supreme Court of the United States is headed by a Chief Justice and currently has eight associate justices; this number can be fixed by Congress. The Supreme Court has a mission statement that states "The Supreme Court is the highest tribunal in the nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. The Court stands as the final arbiter of the law and guardian of constitutional liberties." It is the highest federal court in the United States and has jurisdiction over all federal courts and state courts. Who are the current members? Provide a brief summary of each. John G Roberts Jr.; Chief Justice. From Buffalo, New York, and born on January 27 of 1955, thus making him sixty years old. He attended Harvard University; he received his bachelor's degree in 1976 and his JD in 1979. He has had much experience in law, from assisting law, associate to various presidents, such as Ronald Reagan, to the US Department of Justice. He was nominated by former President George W. Bush to be Chief Justice; he has currently been active since September 29, 2005. Antonin Scalia; Scalia was born in Trenton, New Jersey. He was born on March...

Words: 846 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Supreme Court Pragmatism

...I believe that the courts rule the nation because even though they don’t have many powers, they are the last ones who get a say on a matter. This is Judicial Review which gives the court the right to “strike down acts that violate the constitution” (Morone & Kersh 577). The Judicial system also has the shortest article in the constitution; therefore it has fewer constraints on its power. The Judicial Review was never in the constitution, but the court gained that power saying that it fit under its umbrella of powers. The court’s power enhances more by pragmatism than originalism. Morone and Kersh say that “The Court breaks relatively evenly along the partisan divide” (591). I believe it leans towards pragmatism because of its...

Words: 446 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Power of Supreme Court

...The Power of the Supreme Court Cannot be Justified in a Democracy (45) The US Supreme Court has a number of powers. These include the power to declare acts of Congress, the executive or state legislatures unconstitutional through the power of judicial review. The supreme court justices are also given the power to interpret the constitution when making decisions, again, through their power of judicial review. It is arguable that it is essential for the supreme court to have such powers in order to allow the American democracy to flourish. However, there is much evidence to suggest that the supreme court holds too much power for an unelected body, thus hindering democracy. The ambiguity of the constitution means that there is much room for interpretation. Since interpreting the constitution is the role of the supreme court, the supreme court is often seen as a quasi legislative body. This is because through its interpretations, particularly those made by loose contructionists, the supreme court acts as an additional legislature. It's decisions can have the same effect as passing legislation. For example, the Grutter vs Bollinger decision (2008) involved the courts laying down a time frame for which affirmative action can be deemed necessary. This effectively acted as a piece of legislation even though it did not pass through Congress. This can be seen as being problematic and potentially damaging for a Democracy. Justices are unelected, they therefore lack legitimacy and should...

Words: 913 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Supreme Court Justices

...Supreme Court justices are just politicians in black robes Supreme court justices are politicians. They are politicians alongside their duties of judges of the highest court in the land. The most basic definition of a politician is, a person that achieves a position of policy making over an organized community. Judges, in theory, should be fair, unbiased, neutral, impartial and not based or linked to any political party or movement. However, decisions made by the Supreme Court judges have had huge political significance. While it’s not the standard in lower courts, the United States Supreme Court is forced to make political and judicial decisions. A judicial decision is based on the question was a law broken. However, because the Supreme Court is the highest court of the land, they also must make political decisions some of which have been more powerful that the actual laws congress had written. The Supreme Court is in charge of making sure congress and the president don’t overstep their authority, and to do this job of keeping these branches accountable it would be impossible for the justices to not be politicians yielding real power. One of the examples of the supreme courts political power the court case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). Estelle Griswold was the executive director of Planned Parenthood in Connecticut; she and Dr. Buxton of Yale Medical School opened a clinic in Waterbury and after only serving 10 patients Griswold and Buxton were arrested and convicted...

Words: 2189 - Pages: 9

Free Essay

Supreme Court Cases

...Karen Franklin Grantham University GP 210 04/14/2016 Supreme Court Cases The 9 members of the United States supreme court: Justice | Date of Birth | Appointed by | Sworn in | Vacant (Antonin Scalia) | 3/11/1936 Died 2/13/2016 Age: 79 yr 11 mo | Ronald Reagan | 9/26/1986 Served: 29 yr 4 mo | Anthony Kennedy | 7/23/1936 Age: 79 yr 8 mo | Ronald Reagan | 2/18/1988 Served: 28 yr 1 mo | Clarence Thomas | 6/23/1948 Age: 67 yr 9 mo | George H. W. Bush | 10/23/1991 Served: 24 yr 5 mo | Ruth Bader Ginsburg | 3/15/1933 Age: 83 yr 0 mo | Bill Clinton | 8/19/1993 Served: 22 yr 7 mo | Stephen Breyer | 8/15/1938 Age: 77 yr 7 mo | Bill Clinton | 8/3/1994 Served: 21 yr 8 mo | John G. Roberts | 1/27/1955 Age: 61 yr 2 mo | George W. Bush | 9/29/2005 Served: 10 yr 6 mo | Samuel A. Alito, Jr. | 4/1/1950 Age: 66 yr 0 mo | George W. Bush | 1/31/2006 Served: 10 yr 2 mo | Sonia Sotomayor | 6/25/1954 Age: 61 yr 9 mo | Barack Obama | 8/8/2009 Served: 6 yr 8 mo | Elena Kagan | 4/28/1960 Age: 55 yr 11 mo | Barack Obama | 8/7/2010 Served: 5 yr 8 mo | http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Hx/SupremeCourt.html A Texas resident wanted to terminate her pregnancy through abortion, but Texas law prohibited abortions unless they were happening to save the mother’s life. The right to privacy which is in the fourth amendment is the laws that was being challenged and in this case it was protected under the fourteenth amendment...

Words: 489 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Supreme Court Case

...Supreme Court Case Happy Villa May 19, 2014 Loanan Ase 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 will explain how a person technical error can cause such harm mentally, physically, and finically on a single family. Sources, Purposes, and Jurisdictions Robert and Marian Tolan are mother and son that is suing a former officer by the name of Jeffrey Wayne Cotton for using deadly force against an unarm innocent man. Cotton was indicted in May 2009. According to "Find Law" (2014), “Sergeant Cotton and Officer Edwards violated Robbie and Marian Tolan's right to freedom from excessive force (under Fourth Amendment, incorporated in Fourteenth); and both Officers acted in furtherance of a City of Bellaire official policy of racial profiling and discrimination.” The purpose of the Tolans taking their case to the Supreme Courts was “because no genuine...

Words: 792 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Supreme Court Essay

...execution, which should have been only 30 seconds, lasted 14 minutes long. Whenever the phrase “death penalty” is brought up, two sides of extremists are riled up shouting for either approval or forbearance; thus creating a whirlpool of dissent and provocation. Many critics of this controversial issue may state that the moral aspects are inhumane and that the use should be discontinued from the United States; however, the crimes deemed worthy of capital punishment should not and cannot be overlooked simply because of a certain belief. The implementation of the death penalty should remain in practice to prevent heinous crimes and victimization of the innocent. Sometimes the “chair” truly is the best seat in the house. The supreme court case of Alabama vs John Louis Evans of 1977 shifted the viewpoint as to how the United States would approach the sensitive issue of the death penalty. John Evans was the first inmate to be executed by the state of Alabama after the United States re-instituted the death penalty in 1976 (Blanco). Over the course of two months, Evans and his accomplice participated in a crime spree involving in over thirty robberies, extortion schemes, and several kidnappings. He was charged with first degree murder and...

Words: 1620 - Pages: 7

Free Essay

Supreme Court Case

...Supporters of affirmative action fear that the Supreme Court could curtail or further restrict the use of race-conscious admissions policies at public universities. On Wednesday, all eyes will be on Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose vote is considered pivotal in the case brought by a white Texan who has sued the University of Texas at Austin, claiming that she was denied admission to the school in 2008 because of her race. Abigail Fisher, who has since graduated from Louisiana State University, said she was subject to unequal treatment in violation of the 14th Amendment. "I was taught from the time I was a little girl that any kind of discrimination was wrong, and for an institution of higher learning to act this way makes no sense to me," Fisher said in an interview clip posted on the website of the Project on Fair Representation, a legal defense foundation that's providing her with legal representation. On the other side are lawyers for the University of Texas, who argue that, like many other universities, UT seeks to assemble a class that is diverse in innumerable ways -- including race -- and that "race is just one of many characteristics that form the mosaic presented by an applicant's file." More than 90 friend of the court briefs have been filed in the case, with the Obama administration weighing in favor of the university. Others, who support Fisher, argue that diversity can be achieved through race-neutral programs, and that race-preferential admissions policies can...

Words: 1102 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Supreme Court Knowledge Check

...The chain of events leading up to the Supreme Court case U. S. v Clarke included summonses issued by the IRS to four people associated with Dynamo Holdings, L.P. for evidence and documents related to Dynamo’s tax liability for 2005-2007. Large interest expenses reported in those years were in question. Dynamo had agreed to two year-long extensions of the usual 3-year limitation period for assessing tax liability. When the four individuals failed to comply with the summonses issued in September and October 2010, the IRS pursued the issue in District Court in April 2011 to enforce the summons under United States Code Section 7602(a), which gives the Secretary the power to examine relevant or material information and to summon liable parties. Under Reisman v. Caplin, 375 U. S. 440, 449 (1964), the summons was challenged by respondents, attempting to question the responsible agents and claiming the IRS had questionable motives in issuing the summonses. The respondents held that the IRS issued the summonses to “punish Dynamo for refusing to a further extension of the applicable statute of limitations.” Additionally, the respondents claimed that the IRS decided to enforce the summonses following Dynamo filing suit in Tax Court in order to avoid the Tax Court’s limitations on discovery, thus gaining an unfair advantage. This request was deemed incorrect matter of law and was denied by the District Court because the respondents did not point to specifics that might raise interference...

Words: 814 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Bouvia Versus the Supreme Court

...to deliver the highest level of quality of care that is necessary for the better health of the patient. For instance, healthcare professionals are to “only perform procedures [they] have been trained and are legally able to do; use only approved, correct procedures; obtain proper authorization before performing any procedure; and identify patent and receive their consent before performing procedure” (personal communication, November 12, 2015). According to the case, .the medical professionals did not adhere to the proper standards when performing the procedure on Elizabeth Bouvia. Legal obligations coincide with ethical obligations, but are quite different. By definition, legal obligations are “dut[ies] that [are] enforced by a court of law” Legally, they were unable to perform the procedure due to the fact that Bouvia did not consent to the procedure. After researching the legal obligations of a healthcare professional, there are several laws in which medical staff need to abide by legally. The 42 U.S. Code § 1320c–5 states that a practitioner will provide quality in which “meets professionally recognized standards of health care” (42 U.S. Code § 1320c–5 - Obligations of health care practitioners and providers of health care services; sanctions and penalties; hearings and review, n.d.). Legally, medical professionals need to have consent from the patient, or their medical power of attorney to perform any procedure. The medical staff has a code of ethics that they...

Words: 396 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Supreme Court Interviews

...Chief Justice John Roberts Language is the central tool of our trade. You know, when we’re looking at a statute, trying to figure out what it means, we’re relying on the language. When we’re construing the Constitution, we’re looking at words. Those are the building blocks of the law. Language is vitally important — whether it’s a lawyer arguing a case and trying to explain his position, whether it’s a legislator writing a law, whether it’s a judge trying to construe it. Another point is people develop a lot as a writer the more they read. And so whenever John Roberts has a lot of time to read, he improved a good bit as a writer. Roberts reads a lot, as other people do, of course, in high school and college. And the interesting thing is, people lose a lot of writing ability when they get to law school because you tend to read a lot of stuff that isn’t that well written. And you tend to stop reading other stuff that is well written because you don’t have time. Focused on some badly written cases from whenever or some badly written laws, first of all, and you’re not reading anything good. So you tend to start writing not as well as you might have earlier. Maybe law students ought to make sure they have time to read good things apart from the law throughout law school. Roberts talks a lot about the importance of being clear in your writing and to know what you are talking about. Surround yourself with all the raw materials — the record in the case, the important precedents...

Words: 1407 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Supreme Court Dbq Essay

...Articles I and III of the United States Constitution defined the powers of both Congress and the Supreme Court.In addition, Marshall’s court cases further supported their significant roles, which impacted many cases greatly. In “Marbury v. Madison,” Seeing that John Marshall, who was a federalist, could not side with Marbury, who was also a federalists, because it was not written in the constitution that he could. It would be illegal. He did what was constitutional and ruled in favor of Madison. The creation of a sovereign legislature implies an authority to pass laws to execute its given powers. This clause is nothing more than a declaration of the authority of Congress to make laws, to execute the powers expressly granted to it, and the other...

Words: 972 - Pages: 4