Magruder’s American Government
1st Edition
ISBN: 9780133306996
Textbook solutions
All Solutions
Section 7-1: The national Judiciary
Exercise 1
Solution 1
Solution 2
Step 1
1 of 4
The **life-long term of federal judges** ensures they carry out their duty free from the political pressure, even if they make controversial decisions. The life-long term allows them to **focus entirely on the law**, not politics, as they cannot be fired.
Step 2
2 of 4
The Framers also thought it **brings stability** into the judiciary branch as the judges do not have to be occupied with re-elections but instead focus on their service.
Step 3
3 of 4
One argument that supports the election of judges states that in that way, the judges are friendlier and more productive. However, the catch is that a great judge has to make rational and perhaps unpopular decisions. Rationality has nothing to do with productiveness, or someone disliking or liking a decision.
Step 4
4 of 4
The cases that federal judges encounter demand qualities of different personality traits. The question is, who is then better to select the judges: professional politicians ( the president and the Senate) or the people. Furthermore, **presidents and governors make appointments based on the backgrounds and works of the candidates**. If the judges were to be elected, there would probably be partisan political influence, budgeting, and advertisement involved in the campaigning. All of that has nothing to do with a righteous judiciary.
Step 1
1 of 3
All judges of federal courts are appointed to this position for life. The termination of service may occur only as a result of resignation, retirement or death of a judge.
Step 2
2 of 3
This way of appointing judges means that a change of political power cannot lead to the termination of their service.
Result
3 of 3
Since judges do not have to worry about re-election, they can deal with their duties independently and without any influence.
Exercise 2
Solution 1
Solution 2
Step 1
1 of 3
By **implementing the independent judiciary**, the Framers ensured the **separation of power** by allowing the judiciary branch to work independently and without the interference of the other branches.
Step 2
2 of 3
Also, it allows the **judiciary branch** to be **free of political influence** and only commit to implementing the law, which in turn provides more righteous verdicts.
Result
3 of 3
With the judiciary being independent, the power within the government is appropriately separated, allowing the judges to only focus on the law.
Step 1
1 of 3
During the colonial period in America, the judiciary was neither strong nor independent. Leaders avoided allowing trials at all and often political opponents were punished without trial. In cases where trials did occur, leaders sought to bring judges under control to make decisions that suited them.
Step 2
2 of 3
In the later period, a lot of work was done to ensure a fair and independent trial for all defendants by the constitution, as well as to ensure their rights during the trial itself.
Result
3 of 3
One of the main things in achieving a fair and impartial trial is independent judges who will judge only by the law. For these reasons, the Framers of the Constitution introduced into the Constitution various mechanisms that should ensure the independence of judges, such as the manner of their lifelong appointment to office.
Exercise 3
Solution 1
Solution 2
Step 1
1 of 4
The basic principles that determine whether a federal court has jurisdiction over a case are the subject matter and the parties involved in cases.
Step 2
2 of 4
Subject-matter jurisdiction means that the court has the authority to hear cases related to a specific subject matter. In the case of a federal court, these may be all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Constitution, any constitutional statute, or treaty. Also, the federal court has jurisdiction in cases concerning admiralty and maritime law.
Step 3
3 of 4
The second principle, parties involved in cases, means that the court has jurisdiction if one party involved in the case is one of the stated: one of the agencies or officers if the USA; official representative of a foreign country (for example an ambassador or consul); one of the Sates which issuing another State; citizens of two different States; a citizen of the USA who sues a foreign state; citizens of the same State suing for land located in another State.
Step 4
4 of 4
The stated principles that determine the jurisdiction of the federal court are broad enough to cover all cases that should be heard in the federal court. The principles reflect the federal system, as well as the dual system of courts.
Step 1
1 of 2
**Parties involved** and **subject of the case** determine whether it is a jurisdiction of the federal courts. The federal courts mainly tackle topics that include matters over treaties and disputes whether something is per Constitution. Everything else falls into jurisdiction of the other U.S. courts.
Step 2
2 of 2
The courts must have the authorization to touch on the subjects related to the matter of cases. The federal jurisdiction is the primary authority for all U.S. courts. The two principles are broad enough to cover all of the cases brought to the federal courts, because they have a range that involves all of the presenting cases.
Exercise 4
Solution 1
Solution 2
Step 1
1 of 3
There are certain cases in which the federal and State courts share jurisdiction. This is called concurrent jurisdiction, and the cases most commonly associated with this situation are cases in diverse citizenship.
Step 2
2 of 3
In cases of diverse citizenship, if the value of the litigation is more than $ 75,000, the plaintiff can decide whether he wants the case to be presented before a federal or State court.
Step 3
3 of 3
If the plaintiff chooses to bring the case in front of the State court, there are certain conditions under which the defense may request that nevertheless the case may be referred to federal court.
Step 1
1 of 3
**Concurrent jurisdiction** allows for more then one court to hear the case, that can occur over criminal cases or diverse citizenship.
Step 2
2 of 3
Both state and federal government can have access to the groups, topic, and area of the case. Thus, it is possible for both to have the framework and right to have a hearing of the same case.
Step 3
3 of 3
When it comes to the cases that cover the topic of diverse citizenship, if the litigation is over 75 thousand USD, The plaintiff decides whether the case will be represented to the federal or state court.
Exercise 5
Solution 1
Solution 2
Step 1
1 of 3
In judicial philosophy there are two principles of the influence of judges on legislation: the philosophy of judicial restraint and the philosophy of judicial activism.
Step 2
2 of 3
According to the philosophy of judicial restraint, judges apply the law strictly as it is written. Judges who favor this philosophy avoid innovation and feel that their duty is only to apply the law as it is written.
Step 3
3 of 3
On the other hand, judges who are supporters of judicial activism believe that judges should have a broader role in the legal system. They believe that judges should take into consideration changes in conditions and values in society.
Step 1
1 of 2
**Judicial restraint** is a theory that states the judges should create case rulings based on the original intention from the founding fathers. Judicial restraint is also based on the precedent rule, where the decision should be made in a similar way to cases from the past. Judicial restraint is more traditional than judicial activism because it strictly makes decisions on the written law.
Step 2
2 of 2
**Judicial activism** has a broader view of the judge’s decision-making process. The concept notes that rulings should be based on the interpretation of the Constitution to the current values and circumstances, particularly in cases that touch on social welfare problems and civil rights.
unlock