Most of the cases the Supreme Court hears are appeals from lower courts. Parties who are not satisfied with the decision of a lower court must petition the U. Supreme Court to hear their case.
The primary means to petition the court for review is to ask it to grant a writ of certiorari. This is a request that the Supreme Court order a lower court to send up the record of the case for review. In fact, the Court accepts of the more than 7, cases that it is asked to review each year. Typically, the Court hears cases that have been decided in either an appropriate U. Court of Appeals or the highest Court in a given state if the state court decided a Constitutional issue.
The Supreme Court has its own set of rules. According to these rules, four of the nine Justices must vote to accept a case. Five of the nine Justices must vote in order to grant a stay, e. Under certain instances, one Justice may grant a stay pending review by the entire Court. Each Justice is permitted to have between three and four law clerks per Court term. These are individuals who, fairly recently, graduated from law school, typically, at the top of their class from the best schools.
Often, they have served a year or more as a law clerk for a federal judge. Among other things, they do legal research that assists Justices in deciding what cases to accept; help to prepare questions that the Justice may ask during oral arguments; and assist with the drafting of opinions. The participating Justices divide their petitions among their law clerks.
The law clerks, in turn, read the petitions assigned to them, write a brief memorandum about the case, and make a recommendation as to whether the case should be accepted or not. The Justice provides these memoranda and recommendations to the other Justices at a Justices' Conference. If the Justices decide to accept a case grant a petition for certiorari , the case is placed on the docket.
After the petitioner's brief has been filed, the other party, known as the respondent, is given a certain amount of time to file a respondent's brief. This brief is also not to exceed 50 pages. After the initial petitions have been filed, the petitioner and respondent are permitted to file briefs of a shorter length that respond to the other party's respective position. If not directly involved in the case, the U.
Government, represented by the Solicitor General, can file a brief on behalf of the government. With the permission of the Court, groups that do not have a direct stake in the outcome of the case, but are nevertheless interested in it, may file what is known as an amicus curiae Latin for "friend of the court" brief providing their own arguments and recommendations for how the case should be decided. Provincial Offences Jurisdiction Most provincial offence matters are heard by justices of the peace.
Appointment of Judges For information concerning the appointment process, including qualifications of judges, see the Courts of Justice Act. What do Justices of the Peace do? Criminal Law Jurisdiction Justices of the peace preside: over virtually all bail hearings in the province, and in first appearance and remand courts appearances that occur prior to a trial.
They also: receive informations the documents that commence criminal proceedings issue process in the form of summonses or warrants deal with applications for the issuance of search warrants and production orders under the Criminal Code deal with applications for peace bonds consider applications for warrants to seize weapons, and conduct weapons disposition and prohibition hearings.
Provincial Offences Jurisdiction Justices of the peace exercise jurisdiction over the whole range of provincial offences and offences against municipal bylaws. Other Duties In addition to the duties listed above, justices of the peace have a collection of other responsibilities, including: conducting hearings and making orders under the Mental Health Act for examination of a person by a physician conducting hearings and issuing warrants to apprehend a child pursuant to the Child, Youth and Family Services Act for children in need of protection presiding at trials of municipal by-law infractions, and presiding at trials prosecuted under certain federal legislation, including the Canada Shipping Act and the Motor Vehicle Transport Act.
Despite the fact that most justices have declined to do so, it is not out of the question that a term-limited justice would choose full retirement over senior status, which would come with at least some protections against such self-dealing. But while it is possible that term-limited justices could choose full resignation for similar reasons, that is unlikely to be a significant reason for concern. For example, a person in their early- to mids—the current average age for newly appointed justices—would face the end of their term in their early 70s.
For many, that may open the window for them to take on a new career after their term has ended. It is also worth noting that Supreme Court justices are already allowed to enjoy luxurious sponsored trips and teaching opportunities as well as own stock and have a variety of other potential conflicts of interest that could influence their rulings.
For example, the court once was unable to consider a case because it could not muster the needed quorum to do so as a result of too many justices having financial conflicts.
Moreover, any term-limit proposal could be coupled with reforms to address these existing problems. Lifelong appointments for justices are resulting in increasingly longer terms, with significant implications for the politicization of the court. The nine individuals who sit on the Supreme Court hold incredible power over American life.
The author would like to thank Sam Berger and Danielle Root for their work on this topic. Danielle Root , Sam Berger. Danielle Root. Peter Gordon Director, Government Affairs. Longer terms have led to an increasingly political confirmation process and a court more likely to be out of touch with the general public The average age at which a justice is appointed to the Supreme Court has remained relatively static throughout history, falling between the early- to mids—meaning that as life expectancy has grown, so too have the terms of Supreme Court justices.
Several term-limit proposals are gaining momentum While there is a range of potential term-limit proposals, there are some general principles that have rightly achieved broad support. Once at the end of their term, justices would have the option to continue to work as fully compensated federal judges in senior status, as all currently retired Supreme Court justices have elected to do.
Objections to term limits are misplaced Term limits have received support from those on both sides of the political aisle, but some concerns remain. Term limits are unlikely to bring huge upheavals in law Regular upheavals in law have long been raised as a potential negative outcome to term limits.
Term-limit proposals could increase the number of justices that some presidents appoint, but not dramatically enough to lead to significantly more doctrinal upheaval. Term limits are unlikely to result in more corrupt justices Another concern is that term limits would give justices heightened political and financial incentives to set themselves up for their next job through their legal opinions before fully resigning from the bench.
The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison In this case, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary Act of gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law. A suit was brought under this Act, but the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution did not permit the Court to have original jurisdiction in this matter.
In subsequent cases, the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution. Before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment , the provisions of the Bill of Rights were only applicable to the federal government. After the Amendment's passage, the Supreme Court began ruling that most of its provisions were applicable to the states as well. Therefore, the Court has the final say over when a right is protected by the Constitution or when a Constitutional right is violated.
The Supreme Court plays a very important role in our constitutional system of government.
0コメント