American Government: The Federal Court System!

A court that hears a case on appeal from a lower court has appellate jurisdiction. This means that it has the authority to review and reconsider the decisions made by the lower court. Appellate jurisdiction allows the higher court to assess whether the lower court applied the law correctly and whether any errors were made in the legal process. The higher court can either affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the lower court based on its review.

Original jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear a case for the first time. This means that the court has the power to receive evidence, hear arguments, and make a decision on the merits of the case. It is the opposite of appellate jurisdiction, which involves reviewing decisions made by lower courts. Concurrent jurisdiction means that multiple courts have the authority to hear the same case, while exclusive jurisdiction means that only one specific court has the authority to hear a particular type of case.

Dissenting opinions are written by justices who do not agree with the majority opinion of the court. These opinions present an alternative viewpoint and often provide a critique or disagreement with the reasoning and conclusions of the majority. Dissenting opinions are important because they allow for a diversity of perspectives and can influence future legal decisions.

Judges appointed to the constitutional courts, including the Supreme Court, have terms that last for life. This means that once appointed, judges hold their positions until they retire or are removed through impeachment or resignation. Having judges serve for life provides them with independence and insulates them from political pressures, ensuring the impartiality and stability of the judiciary. It also allows judges to develop expertise and experience over time, contributing to the overall effectiveness of the court system.

The President has the power to appoint judges to federal courts. This is outlined in the U.S. Constitution, specifically in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, which states that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint... Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States." The President's role in appointing judges is crucial in shaping the judiciary branch and ensuring the appointment of individuals who align with their administration's policies and ideologies.

Judicial review refers to the power of a court to assess the constitutionality of a government action. It allows the court to review and potentially invalidate laws or actions that are deemed to be unconstitutional. The court's decision, choice, or vote may be involved in the process of judicial review, but the term specifically refers to the power itself rather than the outcome of a specific case or decision.

In the case of Marbury vs. Madison, the Supreme Court established its power of judicial review. This landmark case in 1803 involved a dispute over the appointment of judges by outgoing President John Adams. Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Judiciary Act of 1789, which granted the Supreme Court the authority to issue writs of mandamus, was unconstitutional. This decision established the principle that the Supreme Court has the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional, solidifying the Court's role as the final arbiter of the Constitution.

The Chief Justice presides over a closed-door conference where justices discuss and present their views on the case at hand. This role is specific to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who leads the discussions and ensures that all justices have an opportunity to express their opinions. This conference is an important part of the decision-making process and allows for thorough deliberation among the justices before reaching a final decision.

The "Opinion of the Court" refers to the written explanation of the majority of judges in a court case. It represents the collective decision and reasoning of the judges who form the majority opinion. This opinion carries the most weight and is considered the official ruling of the court. It is important as it sets a precedent for future cases and provides guidance for lower courts. The term "Opinion of the Court" is used to distinguish it from any dissenting or minority opinions that may also be expressed by the judges.

Written documents filed with the Supreme Court before oral arguments are known as briefs. These briefs provide a summary of the legal arguments and relevant case law that each party will present during the oral arguments. They serve as a way for the parties to present their positions and support their arguments to the court. Briefs are an essential part of the Supreme Court's decision-making process as they provide the justices with the necessary information to understand the legal issues involved in the case.

Concurrent jurisdiction refers to a situation where both state and federal courts have the authority to hear and decide a particular case. This means that the plaintiff or prosecutor has the option to file the case in either a state court or a federal court. The courts have equal power and can exercise jurisdiction over the case simultaneously. This allows for flexibility and ensures that both state and federal laws can be applied, depending on the specific circumstances of the case.

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over cases involving two or more states, ambassadors, and public ministers. This means that these specific types of cases can be directly brought to the Supreme Court without going through lower courts first. This is an important power of the Supreme Court as it allows them to resolve disputes between states and handle cases related to foreign diplomats. By having original jurisdiction, the Supreme Court can ensure a fair and consistent interpretation of the law in these types of cases.

The correct answer is Article III. The national judiciary was established by the Framers of the Constitution in Article III. This article outlines the structure and powers of the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court. It grants the judiciary the authority to interpret laws, resolve disputes, and ensure the constitutionality of government actions. Article III also guarantees the independence of judges by providing them with lifetime tenure and protection from salary reductions.

Jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear and decide a case. It determines whether a court has the power to adjudicate a particular matter and enforce its decision. This includes the ability to interpret and apply the law, as well as the authority to summon and compel witnesses, collect evidence, and issue judgments. The correct answer accurately defines jurisdiction as the authority of a court to hear or try a case, highlighting the crucial role of the court in the legal process.

The Court of Chief Justice Earl Warren was known as an "Activist Court" because it actively used judicial action to address America's social problems. This court made significant rulings on civil rights, criminal justice, and individual liberties, which had a profound impact on American society. The Warren Court's decisions, such as Brown v. Board of Education and Miranda v. Arizona, reflected a proactive approach to shaping social policy through the power of the judiciary. Its actions were seen as transformative and interventionist, leading to the characterization of the Warren Court as an "Activist Court."

The correct answer is "Appeals Cases." This means that the majority of cases heard by the Supreme Court are appeals cases, where a lower court's decision is being reviewed. The Supreme Court has the power to hear appeals from both state and federal courts, and it typically chooses cases that involve important constitutional issues or conflicting interpretations of the law. By focusing on appeals cases, the Supreme Court plays a crucial role in shaping and interpreting the law of the land.

Precedents are examples or decisions made in previous cases that serve as a guide or reference for similar cases in the future. They provide a basis for judges to make consistent and fair rulings, ensuring that similar cases are treated in a similar manner. By following precedents, the legal system maintains stability, predictability, and uniformity in its decisions. Dissenting opinions, on the other hand, are the minority viewpoints expressed by judges who disagree with the majority decision in a case. Following examples is a general phrase that does not specifically refer to legal cases or decisions.

The President nominates both Supreme Court Justices and Federal Court Judges. This is a significant responsibility of the President, as these nominations shape the composition of the judiciary branch. By nominating individuals for these positions, the President can influence the interpretation and application of laws in the country. Therefore, both options A and B are correct.

The Court's decision serves as the basis for its participation in the development of the American system of government. This suggests that the Court's decision has had a significant impact on shaping the structure and functioning of the government in the United States. The Court's involvement in the development of popular sovereignty, death row, and jails is not mentioned or implied in the question, making them incorrect choices.

The President's nominees are subject to the approval of the Senate. This is because according to the United States Constitution, the President has the power to nominate individuals for various positions, such as Supreme Court justices, cabinet members, and ambassadors. However, these nominations are not final until they are confirmed by the Senate. The Senate holds confirmation hearings and votes on whether or not to approve the President's nominees. This system of checks and balances ensures that the President's choices are thoroughly vetted and that there is a level of accountability in the appointment process.

The Supreme Court hears only one to two cases per year in which it has original jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction refers to the court's authority to hear a case for the first time, rather than on appeal. This means that the Supreme Court is the initial court to hear and decide certain types of cases, such as disputes between states or cases involving ambassadors. Since the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, it typically focuses on appellate jurisdiction, where it reviews decisions made by lower courts. However, it exercises original jurisdiction in a limited number of cases.

Once the Supreme Court accepts a case, it sets a date on which lawyers on both sides will present oral arguments. Oral arguments are an opportunity for lawyers to present their case and respond to questions from the justices. It allows the justices to clarify any doubts they may have and gain a better understanding of the legal arguments being made. This process helps the Supreme Court justices make an informed decision on the case.

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, meaning it has the authority to hear a case for the first time, in certain types of cases such as those involving ambassadors or disputes between states. Additionally, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction, which allows it to review decisions made by lower courts. This means that individuals or parties who are dissatisfied with a lower court's decision can appeal to the Supreme Court for a review. Therefore, the correct answer is "Original and Appellate Jurisdiction."

Cases that can only be heard in federal courts give federal courts exclusive jurisdiction. This means that these cases can only be tried in federal courts and not in state or local courts. Exclusive jurisdiction ensures that federal courts have the sole authority to hear and decide on certain types of cases, such as those involving federal laws, the Constitution, or disputes between states. By having exclusive jurisdiction, federal courts maintain their power and authority in interpreting and applying federal laws and resolving disputes that fall within their jurisdiction.