read docs and finished assgnment 2 in INTA

1 files changed, 123 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/rich/21_judiciary b/rich/21_judiciary
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cffee60
--- /dev/null
+++ b/rich/21_judiciary
@@ -0,0 +1,123 @@
+Federalist #78
+352
+Decisions about judiciary:
+- Mode of appointment
+- Tenure
+- System of multiple courts' relations
+353
+Appointment:
+- "same with that of appointing the officers of the Union in general"
+Tenure:
+- indefinite "during good behavior"
+- "always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the
+  Constitution."
+    - doesn't have power over sword (military) or purse (spending)
+    - judgments have no power w/o executive support
+- Judiciary, although sometimes injust, is not injust to liberty
+354
+- Better separated so judgments aren't all-powerful
+--> Indefinite terms separate it from exec, legis. powers and form
+"citadel of the public justice"
+- courts have to review laws to make sure they are constitutional
+    - this does not imply superiority
+355
+- "regulate... by the fundamental laws [constitution]."
+- Constitution is thought of as the will of the people
+- By convention, newer laws supercede older laws (of equal authority)
+356
+- What happens if the courts exercise will over legislation?
+"bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments"
+- permanent tenure -> faithful, not political performance (of
+  constitutionality-checking)
+wrt legislation, constitution is absolute, but not for the people, but
+neither legislation nor justices can change the constitution
+357
+Justices moderate laws, reducing those that harm specific classes of
+people.
+Any periodical appointment would make judges less loyal to the
+Constitution. "Too great a disposition to consult popularity"
+- Also expertise over the laws is very difficult.
+    - There are many because all cases need to be specified so they are
+      not adjudicated arbitrarily
+    - Again an argument for permanent terms
+358
+GB has a similar institution of permanent tenure
+
+"The Court and American Life" from *Storm Center: The Supreme Court in
+American Politics* by David O'Brien
+>Abstract
+The SC is not an apolitical body.
+It is not entirely dispassionate and based solely on constitutional
+    review.
+Brown v. Board of Education was delayed to accumulate more supportive
+    case law
+The Court must maintain its own legitimacy
+292
+Justice Frankfurter delayed it because of the importance of "timing and
+public reactions"
+293
+- Was merged with other similar cases from around the country
+"The power of the court lies in the persuasiveness of its rulings"
+- Agreement with Hamilton
+Court decisions "are not self-executing" and thus rely a great deal on
+public opinion.
+    Dredd Scott (ruled for slavery) was a "great folly."
+    Justices have given in to picketers outside of SC (questionable)
+294
+- Resistance to Brown v. Board of Education was expected
+- Implementations were difficult
+    - Mr. Emory Rogers, attorney for South Carolina, denies that South
+      Carolina would be able to implement integration.
+    - Court establishes a schedule of gradual integration of schools
+295
+- Clerks don't want to explicitly sanction 12 year integration plan
+- Black and Minton argued "the less we say the better off we are"
+    - "The others disagreed"
+296
+- "the Court's bold moral appeals"
+Ruling passed in 1954; only enforced by 1964 w/ Civil Rights Act.
+- "required the cooperation and coordination of all three branches"
+297
+- "The Court is almost powerless to affect the course of national
+  policy" -- Gerald Rosenberg
+"Dynamic Court" can take on issues other branches can't, but
+"Constrained Court" can only bring about change when institutional
+incentives/restraints are absent.
+- But Rosenberg underestimates the influence on society of the decision
+298
+Court decisions change over time
+
+1. In Federalist #78, how do the justices remain the "bulwarks of a
+limited Constitution"? Please cite the text in the construction of your
+answer.
+
+The justices are able to enforce the "limited Constitution" because of
+"the permanent tenure of judicial offices" (Federalist #78, 356).
+Hamilton focuses his arguments largely on the independence of the court
+from either the legislature or the executive branch, and he argues that
+this independence from their appointment powers and their more momentary
+politics makes the court more loyal to the Constitution. They
+"regulate...by the fundamental laws" (Federalist #78, 355), Hamilton
+claims, the fundamental laws being the Constitution as derived from the
+will of the people. The justices have the power to pronounce a
+legislative act "contrary to the Constitution" (Federalist #78, 354)
+void, this constitutional power which has been given to the judiciary
+protecting the Constitution by their judgments.
+
+2. Does O'Brien's argument reflect Hamilton's observations of the
+Supreme Court being the weakest of the three branches? Please cite the
+text in the construction of your answer.
+
+O'Brien agrees that the Supreme Court is the weakest of the three
+branches. He also agrees that it is weaker than public opinion but
+believes it is much less insulated than Hamilton does, possibly because
+of largely different political circumstances and structures at these
+documents' times of writing. "The judiciary alone could not achieve
+desegregation," requiring "the cooperation of all three branches
+(O'Brien 296). This implies that it is weaker because it cannot enforce
+policies, but the specific case being observed shows that the
+legislative being the strongest manifests power to the
+executive/judicial with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (O'Brien 296).
+Politically, O'Brien believes the court holds little power but does
+believe in its longterm sway of public opinion: "the Court lent moral
+force and legitimacy to the civil rights movement." (O'Brien 298).