SUPREME COURT: To what extent is there minority representation in the judiciary?

We can look at this from a couple of angles;

1) Ethnic minorities

Are there enough ethnic minorities such as African Americans, Hispanics and Asians?

2) Social minorities eg disabled people

Are there enough social minorities?

3) Minority opinion

How often are rulings against public opinion and in favour of a minority opinion?

The question is asking about minority representation in the judiciary. The judiciary includes judges on a regional, state and federal level (not only the Supreme Court!!). So when you mention Hispanic Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, remember to talk about lower court judges as well

Discuss whether minorities are represented physically i.e what percentage of judges are ethnic/social minorities? Is this proportionate to the percentage of minorities in the population?

Discuss whether the rulings are favourable to minorities e.g. affirmative action, gay rights cases

Intro

Include all the key terms; 

-minority representation

-judiciary

Briefly talk about the importance of minority representation e.g. to increase public confidence in the judiciary. 

Discuss the different angles of minority representation and state whether you think there is minority representation

Main body

1) Ethnic/social minority representation

YES: There are ethnic minorities in the Supreme Court including Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor

Racially diverse states such as Hawaii or Texas have very high minority representation in state courts

Consider 

NO: Although there are some ethnic minorities in the judiciary, the percentage is still unrepresentative of the population. For example, the Hispanic population grew by 43% between 2001 and 2010, but this growth is not reflected in the judiciary  

2) Court rulings

YES: There have been a number of cases in favour of ethnic and social minorities such as Brown v Board of Education 1954 (desegregation), Grutter v Bollinger 2003 (affirmative action), and the recent same sex marriage ruling (2015)

NO: There have also been some cases in expense of ethnic and social minorities such as Gratz v Bollinger (2003) and Schuette v Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (2014), both of which ruled against affirmative action. The Court even refused to hear the Adar v Smith case in 2013, which was related to gay rights. This could be because the Supreme Court has become more conservative in recent years 

Conclusion

Say whether you think there is minority representation and why. You could say no because ethnic minorities tend to have lower educational attainment and therefore have a lower chance of becoming a judge. Or you could yes; explaining that minority representation varies from state to state, but the highest Court in the land is very ethnically diverse

SUPREME COURT: Is originalism the most appropriate judicial interpretation?

Originalism is a type of interpretation of the Constitution.

Originalists interpret the Constitution based on what they thought the Founding Fathers intended at that time.

In this question, compare originalism to the two other types of interpretation i.e loose constructionism and strict constructionism. Make sure you look at both (or more) sides throughout in order to keep your answer balanced

The paragraphs in red are the strongest points

Introduction; Include all the key terms in your intro. Then briefly talk about the purpose of interpreting the Constitution (judicial review), the meaning of originalism and why it is a good/bad way to interpret the Constitution. Then end by stating whether you think originalism is an appropriate way to read the Constitution

YES- Protection of civil liberties Originalists understand and advocate the desire of the Founding Fathers to prevent tyranny and the oppression of individual rights. Although they have a narrow interpretation of ‘Securing the blessings of liberty’, originalists tend to support more conservative rights such as Second Amendment rights District of Columbia v Heller case 2008 and freedom of corporate speech through campaign donations eg Citizens United v FEC 2010 AND McCutcheon v FEC 2014	NO - Protection of civil liberties The nature of civil liberties is dynamic. It has evolved over the years; the right to privacy was only introduced in 1973 as a result of the Roe v. Wade ruling. The application of equal protection and liberty is now extended to women and descendants of slaves, which is in conflict with the original meaning of the Constitution.
Bork believed that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning was the way to prevent an elite group of judges from diverting democracy away from elected representatives. Non-originalism encourages the Supreme Court to be ‘politicians in robes’. eg some argue that judges have become too sensitive to public opinion eg the role of amicus curiae briefings in Grutter v Bollinger 2003 over 350 amicus curiaes (record number) were submitted which affected the decision	For the Court to be a legitimate institution, it needs to have some degree of public support. In fact, if there is strong public aversion to a Court decision, the elected executive or legislature may decide to effectively overturn the ruling through an amendment or law. Originalism is clearly not popular, demonstrated by Bork’s unanimous rejection. Many constitutional precedents that dont have originalist support are backed by public opinion eg Brown v Board, Roe v Wade, Hollingsworth v Perry 2013. Trade off between independence and public support. Should a Court not have the respect of its people?
Elected officials are unlikely to uphold the Constitution at the expense of their popularity or seats in power. As such, representatives would be unwilling to oppose public opinion.	NO- Assumes there is a single unified meaning. There were over 50 contributors to the formation of the Constitution and they could not all have had the same views. In addition, from the preamble, it is clear that the Founding Fathers understood that the Constitution was not only for themselves but also for the Posterity. (got this point from Wikipedia) It is inevitable that future generations will have alternative social perspectives from their predecessors.
As Scalia often says in support of originalism, if the public wants a change, a law or constitutional amendment should be passed. The Constitution is meant to impede change, not adapt to sporadic popular opinion.	The amendment process is too difficult in practice. Firstly, two thirds of Congress or state constitutional conventions must propose an amendment, followed by a ratification of two-thirds of Congress or state conventions. It is not easy to obtain a supermajority twice in such a polarised Congress; in addition, the Founding Fathers did not foresee the difficulties in mobilising public opinion of over 330 million+ people. Court interpretations are de facto revisions to the Constitution. This is why it was so difficult to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment AND the Washington DC voting rights amendment
https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/why-originalism-does-not-strictly-govern-same-sex-marriage Originalism does not have jurisdiction over the whole Constitution; there are some cases where the Constitution must be interpreted in accordance with its original meaning such as 7th Amendment cases. But there are also cases where originalism cannot govern the interpretation. For example, the original meaning of the Equal Protection Clause pertained to African Americans.
Firstly, originalism is the most apolitical method of interpretation, as verdicts become less susceptible to individual judicial philosophies. With a 'living Constitution', judges will find it difficult to separate their personal views from rulings. eg Obama mentioned the role of a judge’s heart in a difficult case	However, it is difficult to ascertain the original meaning of the Constitution. The Supreme Court justices were not present in the Philadelphia Convention; they are limited to analysing documents and works of authority of over two hundred years ago to attempt to understand the Founding Fathers’ intentions. Naturally, this results in inconsistency of interpretation; the same problem originalists base their refutation of loose constructionism on. This is demonstrated by the fact that no originalist judge is critical of the Brown v Topeka Board of Education decision despite the clear original intention. Thus, the Supreme Court should not interpret the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning.
It is inevitable that different Supreme Courts will have different Justices with different views, which fosters instability in rulings. This weakens the judiciary as a governmental institution by diminishing the legal and practical authority of precedent and the use of stare decisis. It can even lead to public disillusionment with the judicial process, as demonstrated by the March 2015 protests against the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC ruling. This case and the 2014 McCutcheon v FEC case overturned the precedent set in 2003 in McConnel v FEC. Arguably, if the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning, the campaign finance reform verdicts would be predictable, which strengthens the rule of law and the authority of the Court.	It is inevitable that future generations will have alternative social perspectives from their predecessors. Thus, loose constructionists tend to be judicially active, as they believe that society is always changing. According to them, precedent is important, but not more important than overturning a decision they believe is wrong. The longer the time period between a precedent and a case, the more likely the principle of stare decisis is likely to be ignored eg Lawrence v Texas 2003
Yes because judges are experts in law, not economic or welfare policy. Thus, loose constructionists are unlikely to understand the social impact of their rulings, especially judges who exhibit judicial activism who tend to strike down laws as unconstitutional. eg Justice Holmes in 1923 dissented from the decision to strike down the minimum wage due to its potential impact. Perhaps this is why the Court upheld the Affordable Healthcare Act in National Federation of Business v Sebelius in 2012

Conclusion; Your final paragraph. Here, say which side you support and why (it protects civil liberties, it prevents politicisation etc). You could also mention important factors to consider when interpreting the Constitution e.g. periods of hyperpartisanship is likely to decrease the number of bills Congress passes, which might make the Court more assertive 

SUPREME COURT: Outline the disadvantages and disadvantages of strict constructionism.

Strict constructionism is interpreting the Constitution in a very literal way- word for word.

Advantages:

1) Interpreting the Constitution in this way leaves revolutionary change to Congress. This is an advantage because Congress was elected by the people. Therefore, it has the electoral mandate to implement such change; the Supreme Court does not.

2) Scalia (a Supreme Court judge) often says if a change is wanted, Congress should pass a bill. This prevents judges from 'legislating from the bench'. Strict constructionism prevents the personal opinions of judges from interfering with rulings. This upholds judicial neutrality and may help reduce the politicisation of the Court

Disadvantages:

1) Strict constructionism is unlikely to protect civil liberties such as 14th amendment rights e.g. abortion, same sex marriage, ethnic rights. However, you could argue it protects more conservative liberties such as gun rights

2) Strict constructionism is insensitive to how society has evolved over the years. Less receptive to public opinion

SUPREME COURT: Outline the advantages and disadvantages of loose constructionism

This is likely to be a short 15 mark question

Ok let's consider the question.

What is loose constructionism?

Loose constructionism; interpreting the Constitution in a broad way. 

This is in direct contrast to strict constructionism, which tends to interpret the Constitution in a very literal way. Loose constructionists tend to be liberal judges who consider how society's values have changed over the years, taking this into account when making decisions.

For example, the Constitution says citizens have the bear arms (own guns)

The strict constructionist would read this and say that every adult citizen therefore should be free to have a gun.

Whereas, the loose constructionist would say that this is not practical in 21st century America where gun violence is a major issue. Rather, they would interpret this as a collective right instead of an individual right i.e army and police officers can own guns on behalf of the citizens

There are some situations where loose constructionism will increase the general welfare of citizens e.g. gun rights. But this type of interpretation also has it's problems

So let's answer the question

Main body

1) Advantage; Loose constructionists tend to uphold civil rights and liberties. Judicially active, loose constructionist judges such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg tend to dissent in cases which infringe civil liberties such as Salinas v Texas (2013) and agree with rulings that don't e.g. 2015 Same sex ruling

2) Advantage; Loose constructionists often protect minorities, especially those incompatible with Congress or the executive. This is because loose constructionists are not scared to overturn laws or actions made by Congress or the executive e.g. Brown v Board of Education

3) Disadvantage; Loose constructionists tend to be judicially active, which has fuelled arguments on the politicisation of the Court. They 'legislate from the bench' by striking down laws as unconstitutional. This is undemocratic and elitist, as they have mandate from the electorate

4) Disadvantage; Loose constructionists tend to be too sensitive to public opinion, which could hamper the neutrality and independence of the Court. However, some public support is necessary to maintain the authority of the Court

Conclusion

To determine whether loose constructionism is good or bad, think about the purpose of the judiciary. Does this type of interpretation hinder or help the judiciary to achieve its aims? 

SUPREME COURT: Outline the checks the Court possesses over the other branches.

This is likely to be a 15 mark question

Of course, the other branches are the executive (the president, the Executive Office of the Presidency and the Federal Bureaucracy) and the legislature (Congress).

The Court had few checks over the other branches, as it is the only unelected body

Over the legislature

1) Judicial review of laws passed by Congress e.g. the Court reviewed whether Obamacare was constitutional in National Federation of Business v Sebelius (2012)


Over the executive 

1) Judicial review of actions e.g. USA V Nixon, during the Watergate scandal.
More recently, Republicans are desperate to take Obama's immigration amnesty to the Supreme Court. They believe his amnesty which would protect over 4 million immigrants from deportation is an overstep of his authority


It is also arguable that the Court has checked the executive by determining campaign finance laws in cases such as Citizens United v FEC (2010) and McCutcheon v FEC (2014). Campaign finance is essential for the election or defeat of a potential president, congressman or Senator. Thus, these rulings have had and will have a notable impact in the other branches

SUPREME COURT: Outline the constitutional checks on the Supreme Court.

The Founding Fathers of America were very intelligent men including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. They formed the Constitution to create a system where no branch of government was too powerful, in order to prevent tyranny.

They did this through 'checks and balances', where each branch of government exercises control over the actions of other branches. As a result, the Supreme Court is checked by Congress and the Executive

Notice the question asks for the constitutional checks on the Supreme Court. So focus on the formal checks seen in the Constitution but you may very briefly introduce informal checks such as pressure group or the 'bully pulpit' in your analysis

Introduction

This is likely to be a short 15 mark question, so you're unlikely to need an introduction. A short introductory sentence should do.

Main body

Just pick three or four of these points, develop them with recent examples and then link the paragraph back to the question

Congress

1) Power of confirmation  e.g. Robert Bork was rejected. Under Bush, Harriet Miers was withdrawn from the confirmation process (not rejected).

Consider the role of pressure groups such as the American Bar Association as well. The ABA gives ratings to judicial nominees e.g. Clarence Thomas received a relatively low rating 

2) Power of impeachment e.g. Thomas Porteous was impeached in 2010 for corruption

3) Can initiate constitutional amendments. This can overturn a Court ruling but very rare as the amendment process is so difficult 

President

1) Power of nomination.  

The President is likely to nominate someone of a similar ideology e.g. liberal presidents such as Obama are likely to nominate liberal judges such as Elena Kagan.

However, Justices are free to employ any ideology once nominated e.g. Kennedy often swings between liberalism and conservatism

2) 'Bully pulpit.

The role of the president comes with power, and what he says carries political weight, especially when his approval ratings are high. If the president condemns a ruling, this can erode the public image of the Court. If he supports it, this can have the opposite effect e.g. Obama lauded the 2015 same sex marriage ruling

3) Power of pardon. 

The president can exempt people from the wrath of the Court except in cases of impeachment 

Conclusion

You could say why the constitutional checks are important and which has been the most effective in recent years

SUPREME COURT: Is the Supreme Court too powerful for an unelected body?

Key words are

-Supreme Court

-Powerful

-Unelected body

So make sure you include all these in your introduction to show the examiner you know your stuff.

                                                              Let's consider the question. 

The examiner wants to know... is the Court too powerful? You could argue it is too powerful, it needs more power or it has just enough.

The question says 'Is the Supreme Court too powerful for an unelected body'. This implies that the most power should only be given to those who have a mandate to govern, through elections. Both houses in Congress are elected, and so is the president. So in this question, it makes sense to briefly compare the power of the Court to the president and Congress.

Ok let's start

Main body

TOO POWERFUL	NOT TOO POWERFUL
The impact of judicial review can be quite profound. People’s lives, livelihood and lifestyles are often totally dependent on a single ruling. Think about death penalty, gun rights and same sex marriage rulings	Although powerful, the Supreme Court is checked by the other branches; Congress and the executive. In theory, Congress can overturn any ruling through constitutional amendments but in practice, this is very difficult due to the ridiculous amendment process Likewise, the executive branch can decide not to implement a Supreme Court ruling eg in June 2015, the Obama administration vowed to ignore a ruling on coal emissions
Justices have life tenure and guaranteed salaries. This makes it difficult to influence the Court or hold them to account However, this is good because it protects their independence and neutrality, which ensures the rule of law is upheld	The Court is accountable due to the threat of impeachment eg Thomas Porteous was impeached in 2010 on four counts of corruption Confirmation process transfers some power to both Congress and president. All Justices are chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate eg Sonia Sotomayor (2009), Elena Kagan (2010)
The Court can pick and choose cases to hear or reject, often to prevent excessive controversy eg Adar v Smith (2013)	There are some high profile cases that the Court is unlikely to ignore. It could not reject cases of particular importance such as bush v Gore (2000), Citizens United v FEC, the 2015 same sex marriage case
	The power of the Court is often checked by public opinion. Amicus curiae briefings have been known to influence the Court’s decisions eg Grutter v Bollinger where over 350 were received. Perhaps this is because the Court wants to prevent a situation where Congress overturns its ruling, which would certainly weaken the authority of the Court
The power of the Court would have been acceptable if it always protected civil rights and liberties. (Look back at the post on the Court’s effectiveness in protecting civil rights)	The Court needs more power to become a more effective guardian of civil rights
	The due process clause gives the Court a mandate to exercise power. The clause is found in the 5th and 14th amendments; it protects citizens from authorities treating people however they like. Therefore, although the Court has no mandate through elections, it does have a mandate from the Constitution

Conclusion

Pick a side and say why you agree. I don't think the Court is too powerful; it has just enough power to safeguard civil rights and liberties while acting as a check on the legislative and executive branches through judicial review. The Supreme Court has become more conservative under John G. Roberts; which has fostered the use of judicial restraint, effectively transferring power to the legislature and executive. Thus, the Supreme Court is not too powerful for an unelected body and in fact, has just enough power to perform its constitutional functions. 

SUPREME COURT: How effectively has the Court protected civil rights?

They might decide to twist the question a little by including 'since 2005' at the end of the question. In that case, focus your answer on the Robert's Court but it wouldn't hurt to occasionally compare and contrast with previous Courts e.g. Burger, Warren, Rehnquist

They could also ask 'How effectively has the Court protected civil liberties?'
The difference between civil rights and liberties is explained wonderfully here but for our level, they're pretty much the same.

Before we attempt the question, let's understand what exactly they are asking.

The key term here is civil rights. What are civil rights?

Historically, civil rights referred to the equal economic, social and political treatment of black people. Nowadays, you can extend this definition to any individual or minority group.

The US Constitution outlines American civil rights in the first 10 amendments  e.g. freedom of speech, right to own a gun, protection from unreasonable searches by the police etc + the 13th (abolished slavery) and 14th amendments (equal protection/right to privacy)


Next, let's think about how the Court can even protect civil rights. What power does it have in the political system? Yes, the power of judicial review. Through judicial review, the Court can declare laws as unconstitutional and overturn the rulings of previous cases.

SO the question is effectively asking 'Does the Court use judicial review to ensure each and every citizen is treated fairly under the law and is free to express themselves?' You have to then give a yes and no answer and say why you're saying yes and no. Simple as that

Ok so let's answer.

Intro
Give a brief overview of the subject. Why do civil rights need to be protected? How does the Court protect civil rights? Here, tell the examiner whether you think the Court has successfully protected civil rights

Main body

Pick four or five civil rights outlined in the Constitution. Has the Supreme Court protected this right?

1) 1st Amendment; Freedom of speech, religion, expression

YES - Consider cases such as Citizens United (2010), which protected freedom of speech of corporations and trade unions. Snyder v Phelps (2011), which upheld the rights of anti-gay protesters. McCutcheon v FEC (2014)

NO- Argue that Citizens United did not protect the freedom of speech of ordinary Americans. Rather, it paved the way for Super PACs, organisations which can raise and collect unlimited donations mostly spent on attack ads.
Consider cases which have reduced freedom of speech/religion e.g. ban on prayer in public schools


2) 2nd Amendment; Right to bear arms (gun rights)

YES- The Supreme Court has protected gun rights in cases such as USA V Lopez 1995 and DC v Heller (2008), which ruled that the Constitution gave Americans the individual right to own a gun

NO- The Supreme Court did not consider the rights of potential gun victims. Consider the Sandy Hook massacre, Colorado cinema shootings and the more recent Charleston church incident in June 2015

3) 4th and 5th Amendments

YES- Riley v California, ruled that police are not allowed to search mobile phones of those arrested, unless they have a warrant

NO- Salinas v Texas (2013), ruled that although an arrested person may have the right to remain silent, they must specifically say they want to remain silent in order activate their 5th amendment rights. Otherwise, their silence can be used against them

4)14th Amendment; equal protection, right to privacy, due process

YES- Roe v Wade (1973), which legalised abortion
Brown v Board of Education (1954), allowed black kids to attend the same schools as white kids
Lawrence v Texas (2003), ruled that the government had no business in sexual relationships of homosexuals
2015 same sex marriage ruling

NO- Gonzales v Carhart (2007), upheld the partial-birth abortion ban. Argue that this is a violation of a woman's right to privacy

Perhaps we could also bring in affirmative action here. Affirmative action can be viewed as a form of equal protection, as it levels the playing field for historically disadvantaged groups, both in education and employment. Thus, the Court's support of affirmative action in Grutter v Bollinger (2003) could be seen as a protection of civil rights, while the Court's support of the Michigan ban on affirmative action (2014) could be considered a failure to protect civil rights

However, affirmative action hinders equal protection as it prevents well-qualified white candidates from obtaining places at uni/other organisations. Thus, the Supreme Court's support of affirmative action could actually be considered a violation of civil rights

Conclusion

Pick the side you agree with and say why you agree with it. You could also say why you don't agree with the other argument

Layout

As I just finished the A Level politics course, I'm going to work through the course backwards to extract the info while it's still fresh in my mind 

So we'll do Unit 4C first;  about governing the USA i.e judges, lawmakers, the president and the sacred document...the Constitution

Then we'll do Unit 3C next; about how people are represented in the USA i.e elections, pressure groups, political parties and the importance of race and ethnicity in America.

After that, we'll travel back to AS Politics Unit 1 and 2 which is totally focused on the UK and European Union

In the near future, I may also work with some people who followed other A2 routes such as political ideologies, to enrich this site and broaden the audience

SUPREME COURT: Are judges politicians in disguise?

In an ideal world, the Supreme Court should be independent and neutral. It should be immune from the ebbs and flows of politics i.e it should make decisions solely based on the Constitution.

Independent: The Court should not be influenced by other political agents such as Congress, the president or the public. Justices have fixed salaries and permanent seats to promote independence

Neutrality: The Court should not have any vocal political affiliations. It should treat everyone equally (rule of law) and base rulings on the Constitution and other sources of law

However, there are concerns that the Court is sensitive to public opinion and political bias. Ever since Bush v Gore (2000), where the Court effectively chose the winner of the 2000 presidential election, many have insisted that the Court has become too involved in politics

As such, there has been loads of debate concerning the politicisation of the Supreme Court

Politicisation: the involvement of politics in an institution, especially one that is supposed to be independent and neutral

At A2, you are likely to get questions about the politicisation of the Supreme Court. This can come in different forms such as

-To what extent are Justices 'politicians in robes'?
-'Politicians in disguise'. Assess this view of the Supreme Court.

Here's how I would structure my answer

Intro; Explain the nature of the debate. Why do people think Justices are now politicians in disguise? Briefly explain significant events which have spurred on concerns of the politicisation of the Court e.g. Bush v Gore, the impact of landmark decisions such as the June 2015 same sex marriage ruling


Main body; Don't forget that analysis and evaluation account for 50% of your marks. So ensure you always have a 'However' or 'On the other hand'

NOT INDEPENDENT + NEUTRAL The increased willingness of judges to overturn precedents shows that they are yielding to political pressure. Typically, loose constructionists overturn precedents as seen in Roe v Wade 1973  and Lawrence v Texas 2003. However, even strict constructionists and originalists overturn precedent, ignoring the stare decisis principle. Scalia would argue that overturning a precedent is necessary if the original decision was wrong. Also, he supports overturning precedents that were products of judicial activism eg Citizens United v 2010 and McCutcheon v FEC 2014 overturned McConnell v FEC 1993	INDEPENDENT + NEUTRAL Judges are independent and neutral; in Arizona vs USA 2012, Elena Kagan recused herself from the case to promote impartiality, because she supported the federal government while she was the US Solicitor General
The clout of judicial review. Judicial review is a process where the Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of laws and actions of the executive and legislature. It is updating the meaning of the Constitution. It can invalidate the laws of an elected body - it affects day to day lives of Americans and high profile issues such as same sex marriages, abortion etc. Most prominent in 2000 where Rehnquist even had to apologise for the politicised nature of the Bush v Gore ruling	Most cases are not of this nature Judges tend to ignore highly divisive cases Their interpretation of the law often is not in accordance with their personal views eg Scalia However, as Obama said when he was a senator, judges are not robots, and when a case is so difficult, they will end up 'following their hearts'
President’s bully pulpit; the president often throws his political weight behind a decision or criticise it openly eg Eisenhower supported the Brown v Board ruling, George H W Bush condemed the flag burning ruling. Obama condemned the Citizens United ruling as an outlet for unlimited money, Obama lauded the 2015 same sex marriage ruling Presidents can also comment on cases before rulings, which may influence the outcome eg Obama mentioned in early 2015 that he hopes the Court will rule in favour of gay marriages this year
The increase in 5-4 decisions suggest the Court is becoming more politicised, as political ideology is playing too great a role in rulings The Atlantic pointed out that prior to the Warren Court, only about 2% of decisions were 5-4 rulings. But this number increased with the Warren, Burger, Rehnquist and Roberts Courts. Close 5-4 decisions in Rehnquist (Bush v Gore) Roberts Court with issues such as obama care in National Federation of Business v Sebelius (2012) *Hollingworth v Perry 2013 Salinas v Texas 2013	Judges don’t tend to be politically active, as this is not allowed. For example the last judge to be impeached for political activity was Samuel Chase in the early 19th century In the Roberts Court there has been declining judicial activism. 5-4 decisions tend to be few but high profile. Between 2005 and 2012, on average 43% of cases were 9-0 decisions in the Roberts Court
Court takes public opinion into account too often eg Grutter v Bollinger over 350 amicus curiae briefings were submitted and the court acknowledged the impact of public opinion Court generally sits with public opinion eg mental health death sentence rulings	Population size has grown and public engagement has been facilitated by media and national polls technology. more educated. it is important for the court to consider public opinion to maintain its legitimacy. However, after a certain extent, public opinion should not interfere with independence Court can ignore public opinion. eg 1989 flag desecration decision. To an extent, Citizens United ruling. Lack of cameras in the Supreme Court is protection from public opinion eg prevents the media from taking soundbites from the 2015 same sex marriage hearing
The appointments process is too political. The President attempts to prolong his influence in government by nominating a judge with a similar ideology. Thus Obama- Kagan + Sotomayor 2010 , 2009 The Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearings and the American Bar Association gives an informal rating. This is often not based on the judicial ability, but on issues. The increase in partisanship has worsened this issue, as a Republican Senate Judiciary Committee tends to interrogate a liberal nominee chosen by a Democrat President but give soft questions to a nominee from their own party eg Sonia Sotomayor was asked questions on racial remarks.In terms of the vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to recommed Kagan on a 13-6 vote- a carbon copy of the Sotomayor vote (indicator of partisanship?) Likewise, the ABA is not impartial, as it based its rating of Clarence Thomas on sexual scandals rather than his skills and qualification. Finally, the impact of the media public opinion is too severe as demonstrated by Bush’s withdrawal of Harriet Miers and the rejection of Robert Bork ($15 million was spent on a TV ad campaign against his nomination)	Once appointed, judges are free to behave how they wish as long as they maintain the Article III principle of Good Behaviour. For example, although Stephen Breyer was nominated by Bill Clinton, he voted with the 6-2 majority upholding the Michigan ban on affirmative action in 2014. They are independent with high stable salaries and life tenure. Thus, conservatives were disappointed with Burger and Warren. Anthony Kennedy is often liberal although appointed by conservative Richard Nixon eg he sided Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor in Arizona v United State 2012 - where the Arizona law SB 1070 was examined
The broad language of the Constitution leaves room for judicial activism, which tends to have political reverberations. Judicial activism effectively infringes the right of Congress and the executive to make and implement laws, as rulings become de facto statute.

Conclusion; Choose a side and say why you agree with it. Possibly give possible policy solutions to reduce the politicisation of the Court e.g. ensure cameras are not introduced

SUPREME COURT: Should judges practice judicial activism or restraint?

First of all, let's clarify the meaning of judicial activism and restraint

Judicial activism is characterised by striking down laws as unconstitutional and overturning precedents, often to protect civil rights liberties. Judges who practice this are often liberal. They tend to uphold loose constructionism, which means they interpret the Constitution based on the values of our modern society

Whereas, judicially restrained Justices tend to abide by precedent (stare decisis*). They are unwilling to make radical rulings and would rather leave this to the elected legislature. They tend to be conservative and believe in strict constructionism (interpreting the Constitution word for word)

*This is the Latin term for standing by precedent. If you're looking to get an A or A*, try to use terms like this in your answers.

Intro; Supreme Court

What is the Supreme Court?

America is massive. The country has over 320 million people i.e you can comfortably fit in the whole population of the UK five times. Each state operates like its own little country with its own laws and unique culture. It is home to global giants such as Google, Walmart, Apple and IBM and the economy is worth well over $17,000,000,000,000 and counting. America is BIG and America is diverse

So of course, in such an environment it is natural to expect conflicts of interest and thus, arguments. Arguments between people, arguments between firms, arguments between Obama and Arizona...

And that's why there is a judicial system in place - to resolve these disputes. For example, if your neighbour's dog bites you, you limp to the local trial courts. If dissatisfied, you can progress to appellate courts and in very serious cases, the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court can decide to reject cases it does not want to hear. When it accepts a case, it uses a process called 'judicial review', where the Justices determine whether the Constitution is in favour of the case.

Formal definition; Judicial review is a process where Justices determine the constitutionality of the actions of lower courts, the executive and legislature



In A2, you're likely to get questions relating to the philosophy, neutrality and independence of the Supreme Court.


Also don't forget that A2 is synoptic i.e the Supreme Court is relevant to every other topic both in Unit 3C and 4C

In fact, here's a useful tip. If you're ever stuck on a question, just think 'Hmmm, what is the role of the Supreme Court here?'

That would give you at least one solid paragraph, and you only need 3 in a 15 marker.

Congratulations

If you are taking Politics at AS/A2, or simply have an interest in the subject, then I say a massive congratulations to you.

Why?

Because politics is the most applicable subject ever. It is connected to EVERYTHING YOU CAN EVER THINK OF

Ok, let's give an example.

You get £5 an hour for your part time job. Yes, yes I know you work extremely hard and you deserve more; but if not for Parliament, you might have been earning much less. The UK Parliament is a body that makes laws, represents the people and supervises the work of the government. They passed the National Minimum Wage Act, a law that made it illegal for your boss to pay you what he really wants to pay. 

Ok another example. 

You're reading this through a computer (whether a laptop or a mini-computer in a phone or tablet). The computer is connected to wifi which connects you to the internet. 

Yes, the internet...a very interesting place ...except if you're in North Korea. 

There is so much internet censorship that the average citizen there has not heard of Facebook. Or Twitter. Or worse, Dominos. Why? 

Because the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-un, says so. 

What you eat, the clothes you wear, and the prices that you get for both are heavily influenced by government and politics. The fact that you have (or don't have) school mates from all over the world may be a reflection of the immigration policy used by your government. 

Understanding government & politics is not difficult. At this level, the principles and theory of the subject are easy to grasp. But, as with most things in life, it requires dedication and a consistent effort to read the material from your teacher, your textbooks and keep up with the news. 

Once you understand it though, you will be so glad you do. People who get politics tend to have an advantage over people who don't. They understand the intricacies of the news, make  more informed decisions, enrich conversations about current affairs, tend to interview better

If you're looking to impress your in laws, you should probably stay on this website.

This website is based on the Edexcel A-level syllabus but it will be useful for any other mainstream exam board. I also recommend subscribing to 'Prechewed Politics' for extra help.

Once again, I congratulate you for starting this wonderful political journey. And the best part is...there is more than one destination.