POLI 310 Lecture Notes - Lecture 3: Gossage, Vagueness, Equal Protection Clause
15 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
POLI310
Class October 2nd
5 commonwealths to the US + 50 states.
We looked at the ideological of the US constitutions.
Judiciary Branch
As we talked about the US supreme court, we have to keep in mind the major questions:
1) is the judiciary branch truly in equal with the other two branches? Or is it somehow different? Is it the
least different?
2)To what extend is the judiciary part of the political life?
Federal judiciary is much bigger than the Supreme court: for example, there are 94 District courts which
hears about 350K cases a year (lowest) above them there are 12 courts of Appeal which hears about 61K
ases a ea, ad at the top of all thee’s oe supee out hih heas aout 9K ases a ea hih
give full consideration on about 100. Most of the judicial activities happen under the supreme court.
Most of those federal courts are conserved by conservative justices.
Federalist No 78 – Hamilton is in favor of the Federal judiciary branch.
3 key arguments that Hamilton gives in favor of the Federal Judiciary Branch.
1. Federal judiciary branch will be the weakest branch, since it has no influence over the army or
the money, there is therefore no force or will. They only have reputation.
Whe the out ede a deisio, the hae o a to see if it’s being carried out.
The executive branch oversees the sword. And the Legislative branch oversees the purse i.e.
money.
2. Hamilton also explains judges should have life terms as long as they have good behavior. Life
time appoints if and only they have good behavior, which that behavior is subject to
interpretation
3. Discuss Judicial review, who gets to review or interpret the constitution. Whether acts of
Congress are constitutional.
Constitutional Law.
- Recall the structure, the rational, the arguments for and against it.
- Questions related:
o What is the relationship between the judiciary and the politics?
o Does the court define the realm of politics?
o Who gets to interpret the constitution? And How should it be interpreted?
▪ Chief Justice: John Roberts – appointed by Bush 84 years old
▪ Niel Gossage – appointed by trump --- 62 years → fill a vacancy when somebody
died.
▪ Giensberg – 84 years old appointed by Bill Clinton
▪ SS—63 appointed by Barack Obama
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
▪ Antonin Kennedy, grandpa, 81 years old—appointed by Raegan
▪ Clearance Tomas – 69 – appointed by Bush the 1st.
▪ Kaigen—67—appointed by Obama
▪ Samuel Alito – 67—GWB
▪ Steven Brier – 79 – appointed by Bill Clinton
o 9 justices; 1 chief justice, 5 appointed by republicans presidents and 4 by democratic
presidents.
o Who gets to interpret the constitution? And How should it be interpreted?
▪ There is no actual constitutional answer to that question.
• It does not who is the authoritative interpretive
• Well the Supreme court could interpret it
• Or the 3 branches, where they could all work together in understanding
and interpretating.
• Citizes, All Aeias, e the people should get to itepet the
constitution.
• Different options
• As it turns out it has been more or less decided that it is the Supreme
Court.
o Marbury V. Madison
▪ The outgoing Adams regime trying to put in his own judges, and appoint William
Marbury as a supreme court judge.
▪ The appoitet did’t go though it as appaetl ot delieed—missed
the deadline, when Jefferson became President who was the Anti-Federalist.
▪ Marbury ends up suing the government to get his job.
▪ John Marshall – he was strategic, used this case, appointed to be the chief
Justice of the Supreme Court. Sol authoritative interpreter.
▪ John Marshall decided that only the supreme court had the right to determine
what the constitution was saying, Only the court gets to decide those decisions.
▪ All going back to Marbury v.Madison → foundation that constitutional law gets
build.
▪ Marshalls argument in the case is: the constitution is the law, and we get to
decide what the law means, therefore we get to decide what the constitution
mean. But therefore he says that the constitution is not a law. The problem
where there are laws passed by the Congress and you have the Constitution.
Other political actors, will challenge the role of the Judiciary Branch.
o What do they get to interpet: the supreme courts get to interpret what the congress does? Does
it fit with the constitution?
• They look at the federal bureaucracy
• They can look at state laws.
• Own original jurisdiction
- In order for a case to be thought through, and be trialed by the SC:
o It has to be a real case
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
