Aspire To Be A Judge/Lawyer? Take This Supreme Court Quiz

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The judicial authority extends to all areas except pending legislation. Pending legislation refers to laws that are currently being considered or debated by the legislative branch and have not yet been enacted. The judicial branch's role is to interpret and apply existing laws, not to make or enforce new laws. Therefore, pending legislation is not within the jurisdiction of the judicial authority.

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.

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.