U. S. Judiciary System Trivia Quiz!
(37).jpg "U. S. Judiciary System Trivia Quiz! - Quiz")
.
- 1.
The dramatic and sometimes bitter conflict surrounding some Supreme Court nominations can only be explained by the fact that
- A.
There are only nine people on the Court at any given point in time
- B.
The Court plays such a large role in making public policy
- C.
The partisan balance of the Court is quite skewed
- D.
President's rarely seek the "advice" of the Senate
- E.
Nominees are rarely qualified for the job
Correct Answer
B. The Court plays such a large role in making public policyExplanation
The correct answer is that the Court plays such a large role in making public policy. This explains the dramatic and bitter conflict surrounding some Supreme Court nominations because the Court's decisions have a significant impact on shaping laws and policies in the country. As a result, political parties and interest groups often engage in intense battles over nominations to ensure that their preferred policies are upheld or overturned by the Court.Rate this question:
-
- 2.
In theory, strict-constructionist judges differ from activist judges in that they are more likely to
- A.
Adopt a liberal viewpoint on such issues as state's rights and birth control
- B.
Apply rules that are clearly stated in the Constitution
- C.
See, and take advantage of, opportunities in the law for the exercise of discretion
- D.
Believe in the application of judicial review to criminal matters
- E.
Look for and apply the general principles underlying the Constitution
Correct Answer
B. Apply rules that are clearly stated in the ConstitutionExplanation
Strict-constructionist judges are more likely to apply rules that are clearly stated in the Constitution. This means that they interpret the Constitution based on its original intent and the specific language used in it, rather than applying their own personal beliefs or using a more flexible interpretation. Strict-constructionist judges believe that the Constitution should be strictly followed and that any changes or adaptations should be made through the formal amendment process. By adhering to the rules clearly stated in the Constitution, these judges prioritize the original intent of the framers and ensure that their decisions are based on the text of the Constitution itself.Rate this question:
-
- 3.
Seventy years ago judicial activists tended to be
- A.
Strict constitutionalists
- B.
Liberals
- C.
Conservatives
- D.
Moderates
- E.
Radicals
Correct Answer
C. ConservativesExplanation
Seventy years ago, judicial activists tended to be conservatives. This means that those who were actively involved in shaping and interpreting the law were more likely to hold conservative ideologies and viewpoints. They believed in adhering closely to the principles and values outlined in the constitution, and were less inclined towards liberal or radical interpretations. This suggests that during that time period, conservative individuals played a significant role in influencing judicial decisions and shaping the legal landscape.Rate this question:
-
- 4.
In Federalists 78, Alexander Hamilton described the judicial branch as to what branch?
- A.
Most corrupt
- B.
Least political
- C.
Reliable
- D.
Existential
- E.
Least dangerous
Correct Answer
E. Least dangerousExplanation
In Federalists 78, Alexander Hamilton describes the judicial branch as the "least dangerous" branch. This means that Hamilton believed that the judiciary had the least potential to infringe upon the rights and liberties of the people compared to the executive and legislative branches. Hamilton argued that the judiciary's power was limited to interpreting and applying the law, rather than making or enforcing it, making it less susceptible to abuse of power.Rate this question:
-
- 5.
Which of the following statements about McCulloch v. Maryland is correct?
- A.
It established judicial review
- B.
It ruled a national bank unconstitutional
- C.
It restricted the scope of congressional power
- D.
It allowed states to tax federal agencies
- E.
It established the supremacy of national laws over state laws
Correct Answer
E. It established the supremacy of national laws over state lawsExplanation
McCulloch v. Maryland was a landmark Supreme Court case in 1819 that established the supremacy of national laws over state laws. The case involved a dispute over whether the state of Maryland had the power to tax a federal bank. The Supreme Court, in its decision, held that the state's tax was unconstitutional because it interfered with the operations of the federal government. This ruling affirmed the principle that federal laws take precedence over state laws when there is a conflict between the two.Rate this question:
-
- 6.
Who was defiant of Supreme Court rulings and supposedly taunted the Chief Justice to go and "enforce" one of its decisions?
- A.
The Mayor of New York City
- B.
The Govenor of New York
- C.
The Cherokee Indians of Georgia
- D.
Robert Futon
- E.
President Andrew Jackson
Correct Answer
E. President Andrew JacksonExplanation
President Andrew Jackson was defiant of Supreme Court rulings and supposedly taunted the Chief Justice to go and "enforce" one of its decisions. Jackson famously disregarded the Supreme Court's decision in Worcester v. Georgia, which ruled that the Cherokee Indians had the right to their land in Georgia. Despite the Court's ruling, Jackson refused to enforce it and instead supported the forced removal of the Cherokee people, known as the Trail of Tears. This act of defiance towards the Supreme Court demonstrates Jackson's strong-willed and authoritative approach to governance.Rate this question:
-
- 7.
Roger B. Taney was deliberately chosen for the Supreme Court because he
- A.
Opposed the invention of the steamboat
- B.
Opposed th creation of a national bank
- C.
Favored a strinf national government
- D.
Was an advocate of states' rights
- E.
Opposed slavery
Correct Answer
D. Was an advocate of states' rightsExplanation
Roger B. Taney was deliberately chosen for the Supreme Court because he was an advocate of states' rights. This means that he believed in giving more power and authority to individual states rather than the federal government. This aligns with the beliefs of those who selected him for the position, as they likely wanted someone who would support the rights and autonomy of the states.Rate this question:
-
- 8.
During the period from the end of the Civil War to the beginning of the New Deal, the dominant issue that the Supreme Court faced was that of
- A.
Government regulation of the economy
- B.
Rights of privacy
- C.
State's rights versus federal supremacy
- D.
Slavery
- E.
Government regulation of interstate commerce
Correct Answer
A. Government regulation of the economyExplanation
During the period from the end of the Civil War to the beginning of the New Deal, the dominant issue that the Supreme Court faced was that of government regulation of the economy. This is because this period was marked by significant industrialization and the rise of big businesses, which led to debates about the extent to which the government should intervene in economic affairs. The Supreme Court had to grapple with cases related to antitrust laws, labor rights, and the balance between protecting individual liberties and promoting economic growth. This issue was of utmost importance during this time and shaped the Court's rulings and interpretations of the Constitution.Rate this question:
-
- 9.
FDR's court-packing bill is an example of a presidential action designed to
- A.
Help the Court reduce its backlog
- B.
Influence the way in which the Court decided it's cases
- C.
Make the Court more impartial
- D.
Discourage the Court from rendering decisions on major economic questions
- E.
Allow the Court to grow with society
Correct Answer
B. Influence the way in which the Court decided it's casesExplanation
FDR's court-packing bill was a presidential action designed to influence the way in which the Court decided its cases. The bill proposed expanding the number of Supreme Court justices, allowing FDR to appoint new justices who would be more supportive of his New Deal policies. By increasing the number of sympathetic justices, FDR aimed to shift the ideological balance of the Court and shape its decisions in a way that aligned with his agenda. This move was seen as an attempt to exert influence over the Court's decision-making process and ensure favorable outcomes for his policies.Rate this question:
-
- 10.
Franklin Roosevelt's plan to reorganize the Supreme Courts called for
- A.
The Court to meet once every other year
- B.
The toatal number of justices to be increased according to the age of sitting justices
- C.
The president to select justices without senatorial confirmation
- D.
The Senate to have the power to remove justices from Court at will
- E.
All New Deal legislation to be removed from the Court's jurisdiction
Correct Answer
B. The toatal number of justices to be increased according to the age of sitting justicesExplanation
Franklin Roosevelt's plan to reorganize the Supreme Courts called for the total number of justices to be increased according to the age of sitting justices. This means that for every justice on the Court who reached a certain age, Roosevelt wanted to add an additional justice. The aim of this plan was to give the president more influence over the Court's decisions by appointing justices who aligned with his policies. By increasing the number of justices, Roosevelt hoped to tip the balance of power in his favor and ensure that his New Deal legislation would not be struck down by the Court.Rate this question:
-
- 11.
The two kinds of lower federal courts created to handle cases that need not be decided by the Supreme Court are
- A.
Constitutional and district
- B.
Appeals and limited jurisdiction
- C.
District and appeals
- D.
Appeals and legislative
- E.
Constitutional and legislative
Correct Answer
C. District and appealsExplanation
The correct answer is district and appeals. District courts are the trial courts of the federal system and handle a wide range of cases, including civil and criminal matters. Appeals courts, on the other hand, are responsible for reviewing decisions made by the district courts. They do not hold trials but rather focus on reviewing the legal issues and procedures followed in the lower courts. These two types of courts work together to ensure that cases are handled efficiently and fairly within the federal judicial system.Rate this question:
-
- 12.
How many U.S. District Courts are there?
- A.
11
- B.
12
- C.
13
- D.
50
- E.
94
Correct Answer
E. 94Explanation
There are 94 U.S. District Courts in the United States. Each state has at least one district court, and some states have multiple districts. These courts are the trial courts of the federal judicial system and have jurisdiction over a wide range of federal cases, including civil and criminal matters. The number 94 is the correct answer as it accurately represents the total number of U.S. District Courts in the country.Rate this question:
-
- 13.
The Court of Military Appeals is an example of what court?
- A.
District
- B.
Appellate
- C.
Legislative
- D.
General jurisdiction
- E.
Second level appellate court
Correct Answer
C. LegislativeExplanation
The Court of Military Appeals is not an example of a legislative court, as legislative courts are created by Congress to handle specific matters, such as bankruptcy or tax disputes. The Court of Military Appeals is also not an example of a district court, which is a trial court that handles federal cases. It is not a general jurisdiction court, which has the authority to hear a wide range of cases. Additionally, it is not a second level appellate court, as it is the highest military appellate court. Therefore, the correct answer is appellate, as the Court of Military Appeals hears appeals from military courts martial.Rate this question:
-
- 14.
Which of the following statements about the selection of federal judges is correct?
- A.
The principle of senatorial courtesy applies to the selection of Supreme Court justices
- B.
Presidents generally appoint judges whose political views reflect their own
- C.
Since personal attitudes and opinions have little impact on judicial decision making, presidents are usually not too concerned about who they nominate
- D.
Nominee for district court judgeship often face tough confirmation battles in the Senate
- E.
The application of political litmus tests to Supreme Court nominees is no longer legal
Correct Answer
B. Presidents generally appoint judges whose political views reflect their ownExplanation
Presidents generally appoint judges whose political views reflect their own. This means that when selecting federal judges, presidents tend to choose individuals who share similar political ideologies and beliefs. This allows the president to have a judiciary that aligns with their own policy goals and objectives. By appointing judges with similar political views, presidents hope to shape the decisions and rulings made by the judiciary in a manner that is consistent with their own political agenda.Rate this question:
-
- 15.
When politicians complain about the use of "litmus tests" in judicial nominations, they are probably
- A.
Democrats
- B.
Republicans
- C.
Liberals
- D.
Conservatives
- E.
Not part of the group that is currently in power
Correct Answer
E. Not part of the group that is currently in powerExplanation
The correct answer is "not part of the group that is currently in power." When politicians complain about the use of "litmus tests" in judicial nominations, it suggests that they are not in a position of authority or influence to impose their own ideological preferences on the selection process. This complaint implies that those who are currently in power are using such tests to shape the judiciary in line with their own political agenda.Rate this question:
-
- 16.
President Bush's difficulty with the Senate confirmation of his nominations to federal judgeships is particularly interesting because
- A.
A record number of federal vacanciesplagues the judiciary
- B.
President Clinton had no such difficulties
- C.
His own party controls the Senate
- D.
Partisanship has clearly played no role in his selection of nominees
- E.
Ideology has clearly played no role in selection of niminees
Correct Answer
C. His own party controls the SenateExplanation
President Bush's difficulty with the Senate confirmation of his nominations to federal judgeships is particularly interesting because his own party controls the Senate. This suggests that there may be internal disagreements or conflicts within the Republican party that are hindering the confirmation process. Despite having control over the Senate, President Bush is facing challenges in getting his nominations approved, which is unusual considering that President Clinton did not face such difficulties. This situation highlights the complexities and dynamics of political relationships and decision-making within the party.Rate this question:
-
- 17.
If citizens of different states wish to sue one another in a matter involving more than $75,000 they can do so in
- A.
Either a federal or a state court
- B.
A court in the plaintiff's state only
- C.
An intermediate court of appeals
- D.
A court in the defendant's state only
- E.
A federal court only
Correct Answer
A. Either a federal or a state courtExplanation
Citizens of different states can sue one another in a matter involving more than $75,000 in either a federal or a state court. This means that they have the option to choose whether to file their lawsuit in a federal court or a court in their own state. The choice depends on various factors such as the nature of the case, the jurisdiction of the court, and the preferences of the parties involved.Rate this question:
-
- 18.
If you wish to declare bankruptcy, you must do so in
- A.
A court in the state in which you reside
- B.
A state appellate court
- C.
A federal appellate court
- D.
A U.S. Supreme Court
- E.
A federal district court
Correct Answer
C. A federal appellate courtExplanation
To declare bankruptcy, one must do so in a federal appellate court. This is because bankruptcy cases fall under federal jurisdiction, and federal appellate courts have the authority to review and hear appeals from bankruptcy courts. These courts handle cases at the appellate level, meaning they review decisions made by lower courts. Therefore, if someone wishes to declare bankruptcy, they would need to file their case in a federal appellate court rather than a state court or the U.S. Supreme Court.Rate this question:
-
- 19.
Certiorari is a Latin worn meaning, roughly,
- A.
Certified
- B.
Made more certain
- C.
Without certainty
- D.
Appealed
- E.
Judicial
Correct Answer
B. Made more certainExplanation
The correct answer is "made more certain." Certiorari is a Latin term that refers to a writ or order issued by a higher court to review and potentially overturn a decision made by a lower court. By granting certiorari, the higher court is seeking to make the decision more certain or definitive. This process allows for a thorough examination of the case and ensures that the lower court's decision is based on accurate and complete information.Rate this question:
-
- 20.
Cert is issued and a case is scheduled for a heaaring if how many justices agree?
- A.
2
- B.
3
- C.
4
- D.
8
- E.
All nine
Correct Answer
C. 4Explanation
If four justices agree, a cert is issued and a case is scheduled for a hearing. This means that in order for a case to proceed to a hearing, it requires the support of at least four out of the nine justices.Rate this question:
-
Quiz Review Timeline +
Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.
-
Current Version
-
Mar 18, 2023Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team -
Dec 21, 2010Quiz Created by
Danielle_H
Back to top