Aspire To Be A Judge/Lawyer? Take This Supreme Court Quiz
-
Judicial authority extends to issues dealing wih all the following areas EXCEPT
-
Common law
-
Equity
-
Civil law
-
Criminal law
-
Pending legislation
-
A supreme court is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts in many legal jurisdictions. Other descriptions for such courts include court of last resort, apex court, and high (or final) 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 See morecourts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts
Quiz Preview
- 2.
Which of the following represents the best example of a case dealing with original jurisdiction?
-
A review of New York and New Jersey arguing over property rights related to Ellis Island
-
An appeal by a convict on death row
-
A review of the contitutionality of a school district allowing prayer at a graduation ceremony
-
A review of President Nixon's decision not to turn over the Watergate tapes to Congress
-
A review of a federal law mandating affirmative action in industries that have contracts with the government
Correct Answer
A. A review of New York and New Jersey arguing over property rights related to Ellis IslandExplanation
The best example of a case dealing with original jurisdiction is a review of New York and New Jersey arguing over property rights related to Ellis Island. Original jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear a case for the first time, rather than on appeal. In this case, the dispute between New York and New Jersey over property rights falls under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, as it involves a conflict between two states.Rate this question:
-
- 3.
Which of the following principles does common law rely on?
-
Judicial precedent
-
Contract issues
-
Judicial restraint
-
Habeas corpus
-
Judicial activism
Correct Answer
A. Judicial precedentExplanation
Common law relies on the principle of judicial precedent, which means that decisions made by higher courts become binding and serve as a guide for future similar cases. This principle ensures consistency and predictability in the legal system, as lower courts are required to follow the legal reasoning and outcomes of previous cases. By relying on judicial precedent, common law aims to maintain stability and fairness in the interpretation and application of laws.Rate this question:
-
- 4.
Which of the following actions requires senatorial courtesy?
-
A bill introduced by a senator from one state must get agreement from the other senator in that state
-
Members of the same party agree on the order of legislation
-
Senators from the state in which a judicial appointment is being made by the president are informed of who the candidate is prior to the actual appointment
-
The majority leader of the Senate informs the minority leader who he is appointing as committee chairman
-
The president informs the chairman of the Judiciary Committee of a Supreme Court nominee prior to the announcement
Correct Answer
A. Senators from the state in which a judicial appointment is being made by the president are informed of who the candidate is prior to the actual appointmentExplanation
Senatorial courtesy refers to the practice of senators deferring to the judgment of their colleagues from the same state when it comes to judicial appointments. In this case, the correct answer states that senators from the state in which a judicial appointment is being made by the president are informed of who the candidate is prior to the actual appointment. This means that the president would consult with and inform the senators from that state about the potential candidate before making the appointment. This practice is a way of showing respect and deference to the senators from the state where the appointment will have an impact.Rate this question:
-
- 5.
Which of the following committees is responsible for reviewing Supreme Court nominees?
-
House Judiciary
-
Senate Judiciary
-
House Rules
-
Senate Appropriations
-
House Ways and Means
Correct Answer
A. Senate JudiciaryExplanation
The Senate Judiciary committee is responsible for reviewing Supreme Court nominees. This committee, made up of senators, plays a crucial role in the confirmation process of nominees for the Supreme Court. They review the qualifications, background, and legal expertise of the nominees to ensure they are suitable for a position on the highest court in the land. The committee holds hearings, asks questions, and evaluates the nominees before making a recommendation to the full Senate for a confirmation vote.Rate this question:
-
- 6.
Acceptance of a writ of certiorari is based on all the following criteria EXCEPT
-
A recommendation by any of the Supreme Court justices
-
A court decision that conflicts with precedent
-
A court of appeals decision that conflicts with another court of appeals decision
-
Inconsistencies between courts of different states
-
A split decision in the court of appeals
Correct Answer
A. A recommendation by any of the Supreme Court justicesExplanation
The acceptance of a writ of certiorari is based on several criteria, including a court decision that conflicts with precedent, a court of appeals decision that conflicts with another court of appeals decision, inconsistencies between courts of different states, and a split decision in the court of appeals. However, a recommendation by any of the Supreme Court justices is not one of the criteria for accepting a writ of certiorari.Rate this question:
-
- 7.
Which represents a major reason for the submittal of an amicus curiae brief?
-
The Court must rely on precedent cases
-
A friend of the court wished to provide additional information to the Court
-
Lower courts must provide transcripts of its decisions
-
The Supreme court requires related interests in the case to submit briefs
-
The brief from the petitioner provides amended information about the case
Correct Answer
A. A friend of the court wished to provide additional information to the CourtExplanation
An amicus curiae brief is submitted by a friend of the court who wishes to provide additional information to the Court. This is a major reason for the submission of such a brief. The purpose of an amicus curiae brief is to offer expertise or perspective that may not be presented by the parties involved in the case. It allows individuals or organizations with a strong interest in the outcome of the case to present their arguments or information to the Court, even if they are not directly involved in the litigation.Rate this question:
-
- 8.
Which Chief Justice is best known as the head of an activist court?
-
Salmon Chase
-
William Rehnquist
-
Earl Warren
-
Roger Taney
-
Warren Burger
Correct Answer
A. Earl WarrenExplanation
Earl Warren is best known as the head of an activist court because during his tenure as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1953 to 1969, the court made several landmark decisions that significantly impacted civil rights, criminal justice, and individual liberties. Under Warren's leadership, the court issued rulings such as Brown v. Board of Education, which desegregated public schools, and Miranda v. Arizona, which established the rights of criminal suspects. These decisions demonstrated the court's willingness to actively interpret the Constitution and shape public policy, earning it the reputation of being an activist court.Rate this question:
-
- 9.
An example of a decision that would be classified as activist is
-
San Antonio v Rodriguez
-
Dred Scott v Sanford
-
Plessy v Ferguson
-
Brown v Board of Education
-
New Jersey v TLO
Correct Answer
A. Brown v Board of EducationExplanation
Brown v Board of Education is an example of a decision that would be classified as activist because it involved the Supreme Court actively overturning a previous decision (Plessy v Ferguson) and making a significant change in the interpretation of the Constitution. In this case, the Court ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, thus playing an active role in shaping social and legal policy.Rate this question:
-
- 10.
Which Chief Justice is best known as the head of a court pusuing judicial restraint?
-
John Marshall
-
William Rehnquist
-
Roger Taney
-
Earl Warren
-
Warren Burger
Correct Answer
A. William RehnquistExplanation
William Rehnquist is best known as the Chief Justice who pursued judicial restraint. During his tenure, Rehnquist consistently advocated for a limited role of the judiciary, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the original intent of the Constitution and deferring to the decisions of the elected branches of government. He believed that the Court should exercise restraint and avoid making broad societal changes through judicial activism. Rehnquist's approach to the law and his commitment to judicial restraint have had a lasting impact on the Supreme Court and its interpretation of the Constitution.Rate this question:
-
- 11.
Critics of judicial activism feel that which of the consequences result from a court pusuing such a philosophy?
-
A greater protection of the rights of the accused would occur
-
An expansion of civil rights for minority groups would take place
-
The Court would act as a watchdog over the other branches of government
-
A strengthened federal system would result form the decisions made
-
Precedent should be the determining factor when deciding a case
Correct Answer
A. Precedent should be the determining factor when deciding a caseExplanation
The given answer states that precedent should be the determining factor when deciding a case. This suggests that critics of judicial activism believe that decisions should be based on established legal principles and previous court rulings, rather than judges interpreting the law in a more active or expansive manner. They argue that following precedent ensures consistency and predictability in the legal system.Rate this question:
-
- 12.
Proponents of judicial restraint make which of the following arguments?
-
It should be the role of Congress, not the Court, to make policy
-
The interest of government is not realized by a Court that won't make crucial decisions
-
States should not be able to develop their own laws without having to worry about federal court interpretation and interference
-
The federal system will be strengthened by a court that rules state laws unconstitutional
-
The Court should initiate, not facilitate, judicial precedent
Correct Answer
A. It should be the role of Congress, not the Court, to make policyExplanation
Proponents of judicial restraint argue that the role of making policy should be in the hands of Congress, not the Court. They believe that the Court should exercise restraint and not overstep its boundaries by making decisions that are better left to the legislative branch. This view emphasizes the importance of separation of powers and the idea that the Court should not be actively involved in shaping policy, but rather should interpret and apply the laws passed by Congress.Rate this question:
-
Quiz Review Timeline (Updated): Aug 30, 2024 +
Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.
-
Current Version
-
Aug 30, 2024Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team -
Mar 19, 2009Quiz Created by
Mr.sideburns
Back to top