Question 1

Once decided, the Court issues its decision in the form of a

Accepted Answer

The Court issues its decision in the form of a written opinion, which outlines the reasoning behind the decision and sets a precedent for future cases. Oral briefings may be given during the deliberation process, but the final decision is documented in a written opinion. Public forums and national debates are not typical forms of decision-making for the Court.

Question 2

The legal doctrine that requires justices to follow precedents set before them is called

Accepted Answer

Stare decisis is the legal doctrine that requires justices to follow precedents set before them. Amicus curiae refers to a person or group who is not a party to a case but provides information to help the court make a decision. Corpus juris is a term used to refer to the body of the law. Habeas corpus is a legal writ that requires a person who is detained to be brought before a court or judge.

Question 3

The first and potentially biggest worry in considering the power and use of judicial review derives from the fact that Supreme Court justices

Accepted Answer

The fact that Supreme Court Justices are not elected means that they are not directly accountable to the people and may make decisions that go against popular opinion or the will of the majority. This raises concerns about the democratic legitimacy of their power to strike down laws passed by elected representatives.

Question 4

A judicial decision that guides future courts in handling similar cases is known as

Accepted Answer

A judicial decision that guides future courts in handling similar cases is known as a precedent. Precedent is an important concept in common law legal systems, where past court decisions help to inform and shape future legal decisions. Jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear and decide a particular case, mandamus is a court order compelling a government official to perform a duty, and corpus juris refers to a body of law or legal code.

Question 5

The model that focuses on the political actions of individual justices as they try to make the best use of personal and official resources in order to obtain a specific set of policy objectives is called the

Accepted Answer

The strategic model explains the behavior of individual justices in terms of the political actions they take to achieve their specific policy objectives while effectively utilizing their personal and official resources. This model is concerned with understanding how individual justices use their legal expertise, social networks, and reputation to advance their agendas on the Court, which may at times conflict with their ideological values or precedents. The attitudinal model, on the other hand, focuses on how the policy preferences and values of individual justices influence their decisions on the Court rather than their strategic calculations. The legal model emphasizes the role of legal reasoning and precedents in shaping Court decisions, while the classical model deals with the normative principles and institutional constraints that guide the operations of the Court as a collective body.

Question 6

The legal model focuses on which of the following?

Accepted Answer

The legal model focuses on applying the law to the facts of a case, including past decisions. It involves a strict interpretation of the law, and judges often rely on previous court decisions to guide their ruling. The legal model is used in common law systems, where precedent plays a significant role in shaping the law.

Question 7

When the plaintiffs and defendants in a case appear before the Supreme Court, they must present

Accepted Answer

When appearing before the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs and defendants do not present direct testimony or official witnesses, and while important evidence may be presented, it is typically through oral arguments made by both parties. Therefore, the best choice is B - oral arguments.

Question 8

Which of the following decisions is considered binding?

Accepted Answer

The majority opinion is the decision that is chosen by the majority of the judges or justices on a court. This decision is considered binding and sets the precedent for future cases. The other options, including the minority opinion, concurring opinion, and dissenting opinion, are not binding and do not set the precedent.

Question 9

By upholding the constitutionality of laws and adding legitimacy in the minds of the American public to those laws passed by Congress, the Court risks

Accepted Answer

When the Court upholds the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress, it gives a stamp of approval to the tyranny of the majority, meaning the majority can pass laws that may infringe upon the rights of the minority. This can pose a risk to the legitimacy of the Court in the minds of minority groups who may feel oppressed by these laws.

Question 10

The process through which the political and policy preferences of individual justices shape their votes on cases rather than a neutral weighing of the facts and the law is described as the

Accepted Answer

The attitudinal model posits that Supreme Court justices are primarily influenced by their personal ideological and policy beliefs when making decisions, rather than a neutral analysis of the law and relevant facts. This model suggests that justices are more likely to vote in line with their pre-existing attitudes on a given issue, rather than changing their opinions based on the merits of the case before them.

Question 11

The problem of countermajoritarianism occurs when

Accepted Answer

Countermajoritarianism refers to the idea that the courts, and especially the Supreme Court, have the power to override the will of the majority. This occurs when the Court uses judicial review to strike down laws or policies that are deemed unconstitutional, even if they are supported by a majority of elected officials or voters. This tension between the power of the majority and the authority of the courts is a central issue in American constitutional law and political theory.

Question 12

Those justices that voted with the minority and who disagree with the majority opinion may wish to issue a(n)

Accepted Answer

A dissenting opinion is a written opinion issued by a justice who disagrees with the majority opinion. It explains the reasons behind the disagreement and can offer an alternative interpretation of the law. A concurring opinion is written by a justice who agrees with the majority opinion, but for different reasons. An amicus curiae brief is a document filed by a third party who is not part of the case but may have an interest in the outcome. A minority opinion is not a common legal term and is not a choice in this scenario.

Question 13

Following oral arguments, cases in the Supreme Court proceed to

Accepted Answer

After oral arguments, cases in the Supreme Court proceed to a judicial conference, where the justices discuss the case and vote on it.

Question 14

Those who argue that justices should be willing to step in and overturn laws when they see a need to are described as supporting

Accepted Answer

Those who argue that justices should be willing to step in and overturn laws when they see a need to are described as supporting judicial activism. Judicial activism refers to a doctrine or judicial philosophy that advocates for the active interpretation of the Constitution and laws to shape and influence public policy. It is often touted as a way to help guarantee individual rights and liberties and to counterbalance the other branches of government.

Question 15

Which of the following is a Constitutional requirement for becoming a Supreme Court justice?

Accepted Answer

There are no specific requirements listed in the Constitution for becoming a Supreme Court justice. However, historically most Supreme Court justices have had prior legal experience as judges, attorneys, or law professors.

Question 16

Those who argue that the Court should use the power of judicial review only rarely and, when possible, defer to the judgment of the legislative and executive branches in decisions they have made are considered proponents of

Accepted Answer

Proponents of judicial restraint believe that the Court should show deference to the other branches of government and limit their own power of judicial review. They argue that the Courts should only strike down laws or executive actions that are clearly unconstitutional and should otherwise defer to the judgment of the elected branches.

Question 17

Which of the following are more apt to witness direct presidential involvement in the nomination process?

Accepted Answer

Courts of appeal including the Supreme Court are more apt to witness direct presidential involvement in the nomination process as they are higher courts and their justices are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, making the position more politically visible and consequential for the president.

Question 18

While the Supreme Court and the rest of the federal judiciary cannot act as unilateral policy makers, their unique position in the nation and the federal government gives them a unique ability to aid in

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court can influence the national agenda by making decisions that highlight certain issues, prompting legislative or executive action.

Question 19

Many argue that by acting as a safety valve against poor, factious, or tyrannical legislation, the Supreme Court might actual make unwanted legislative outcomes more likely.This is described as the problem of

Accepted Answer

Moral hazard refers to a situation where a party's willingness to take risks increases because they know that the costs of their actions will be borne by others. In the context of the Supreme Court, this means that lawmakers may take more risks in passing controversial or extreme legislation because they know that the Court can strike it down if necessary. This could lead to more radical legislative outcomes that may not have been possible if the Court did not exist, making the problem of moral hazard a significant concern in constitutional law.

Question 20

Federal judges serve for ______, assuming good behavior.

Accepted Answer

Federal judges serve for life, assuming good behavior. This is outlined in Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.

Quiz 15: The Federal Judiciary