Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Nature of judicial precedents
Traditional legal model vs attitudinal model
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Nature of judicial precedents
1) In your Engager, you learned about three different models of judicial decision making. First, explain the three models. Tell their strengths and weaknesses. Then, explain which you think best describes the behavior of Supreme Court Justices, and why. In the video engager, Dr. Kristina Mitchell explains the three different models of judicial decision making; these models include the legal model, the attitudinal model, and the strategic model. The legal model is when the Supreme Court Justices make their decisions based off of fact of case, laws, and precedents. A precedent is a previous case that deals with the an issue that had been discussed before by the Supreme Court. Essentially, the justices would use the information from previous cases to help them to decide on the case at hand. The weakness of the legal model is that basing the decisions off of previous cases would mean even though the world is moving forward, and times and opinions are changing, we are using things from the past to aid in decision making. However, a strength of using this model is using the past to help see how people will react to the decision made and determining if the precedent’s ruling was positive or negative. The Attitudinal model is based off of the fact that the Justices serve for life, unless they are impeached or convicted so the justices have no constraint on their decision making. This model explains that Justices make decisions …show more content…
Web. 18 Apr. 2016. . Geer, John G., Wendy J. Schiller, Richard Herrera, and Jeffery A. Segal. Gateways to Democracy: An Introduction to American Government. 3rd ed. Boston: Cengage Learning, 2015. Print. 3) Your textbook discusses several of the most influential Supreme Court decisions. Provide a detailed explanation of one of these decisions. Describe the participants and facts of the case. Tell the outcome and how the Supreme Court decided the case. Then, explain why the case was so influential in the United
On the national civics assessment, “two-thirds of 12th graders scored below ‘proficient’…and only 9 percent could list two ways a democracy benefits from citizen participation” (O’Connor and Romer 4). The information provided clarifies just how little students know about democracy. Without education on the subject, they are unaware as to how their government contribution is beneficial and why it is needed in the first place. The students, because of their lack of understanding, therefore choose to not take part in their government and fail to carry out their duties as a citizen. The authors provide more research that shows “the better people understand our history and system of government, the more likely they are to vote and participate in the civic life” (O’Connor and Romer 8).
In one case talked about in the textbook, which was Roe v Wade, the outcome ruled that Texas’s view that abortion was a criminal act was unconstitutional. The majority of justices believed that right to privacy includes the right to have an abortion and this wasn’t found in written words in the constitution. The outcome of this decision was influenced from the other Supreme Court case of Griswold v Connecticut. Another important case we discussed in class was Brown v Board of Education and this was an example of judicial activism. This is an example of that because the ruling in the Plessy v Ferguson case that facilities are in fact “separate but equal” was over turned in the Brown v Board of Education case defying the stare decisis (textbook) of letting the ruling stand and incorporating the ruling in this case. People who oppose these rulings back their claim by stating that the judges took their own beliefs into consideration and ignored the rule of law. Therefore, they are undermining democracy and not strictly following the text of the constitutions. More importantly many who oppose this bring up the point that the justices are those who are suppose to strictly follow the text of the constitution and not base decisions on their perspective on the
What is a model? “A model is a simplified representation of reality it does not constitute reality itself. Models purposely ignore certain aspects of reality and focus on selected and related sets of crucial factors” (Segal and Spaeth 2002). In this paper, I will be discussing the three models and which model explains how justices behave the best: the legal model, the attitudinal model, and the rational model. The legal model justices vote on their preference but when given the opportunity they would vote to overturn the precedent because it does not fit their personal opinions. The attitudinal model justices are provided with the best prediction on a given case to determine how to vote. The rational model is the last model that feeds off the other models. The justices for this model vote on their preferences and not on sides. I will describe how each model links into each other.
1. Janda, Kenneth. The Challenge of Democracy. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston, MA. 1999. (Chapter 3 & 4).
Facts: Two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter a colored woman and Richard Loving a white man, got married in the District of Columbia. The Loving's returned to Virginia and established their marriage. The Caroline court issued an indictment charging the Loving's with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. The state decides, who can and cannot get married. The Loving's were convicted of violating 20-55 of Virginia's code.
Janda, Kenneth. Berry, Jeffrey. Goldman, Jerry (2008). The Challenge of Democracy (9th ed.). Boston; New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
The significant impact Robert Dahl’s article, “Decision-Making in a Democracy: the Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker” created for our thought on the Supreme Court it that it thoroughly paved the way towards exemplifying the relationship between public opinion and the United States Supreme Court. Dahl significantly was able to provide linkages between the Supreme Court and the environment that surrounds it in order for others to better understand the fundamental aspects that link the two together and explore possible reasoning and potential outcomes of the Court.
I believe that the attitudinal model best describes the behavior of Supreme Court Justices because the Court tends to focus on those cases in which the law is uncertain, the lower courts are divided, or there is an apparent need for a change in the law. Besides, cases which are controlled by clear rules of law are usually settled
Landy, Marc and Sidney M. Milkis. American Government: Balancing Democracy and Rights. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2004.
Gerken H., Fraga L.R., Fung A., Issacharoff S., Karlan P.S., Keyssar A., Overton S. (2006, September/October). Six ways to reform democracy. Retrieved from http:// http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/gerken.php
The United States is run by a democracy. There are many pieces to democracy that must be in good health in order for democracy to be effective and work. In this essay I will critique some of the most important parts of democracy in America and go deeper. I will first focus on the strengths of United States democracy and then I will dive into categories of democracy that I believe to not be thriving. I believe that the current conditions of United States democracy are becoming a hindrance to this nation, because the opinions and freedoms the public possess are being stripped away through poor media, education, and economy.
The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican government, he and his fellow justices sought to perpetuate their Federalist principles in the United States’ court system. In one of the most memorable court cases of all time--the case of Marbury v. Madison-- Marshall established the idea of judicial review and strengthened the power of the judicial branch in the government. Abiding by his Federalist ideals, Marshall decided cases that would explicitly limit the power of the state government and broaden the strengths of the national government. Lastly, the Marshall Court was infamous for determining the results of cases that dealt with the interpretation of the Constitution and the importance of contracts in American society. The Marshall Court, over the span of a mere three decades, managed to influence the life of every American citizen even to this day by impacting the development of the judicial branch, establishing a boundary between the state and national government, and making declarations on the sanctity of contracts ("The Marshall Court"...
Works Cited Hudson, William E. American Democracy in Peril: Eight Challenges to America’s Future – Fourth Edition. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2004. Landy, Marc and Sidney M. Milkis. American Government: Balancing Democracy and Rights.
Conflicting judicial philosophies define the essence of the nation’s highest court: The Supreme Court. These two conflicting doctrines are judicial restraint and judicial activism. Judicial restraint occurs when justices attempt to limit their own power by only declaring actions of the other branches unconstitutional when the decision is obvious. Precedent, the concept of stare decisis, is also highly revered by judicial restraint justices. Judicial activism revolves around the idea that justices should “legislate from the bench” by entering into social and political matters.
The rule of law, simply put, is a principle that no one is above the law. This means that there should be no leniency for a person because of peerage, sex, religion or financial standing. England and Wales do not have a written constitution therefore the Rule of Law, which along with the parliamentary Sovereignty was regarded by legal analyst A.C Dicey, as the pillars of the UK Constitution. The Rule of Law was said to be adopted as the “unwritten constitution of Great Britain”.