Case The Court example essay topic

Section 1 The resources of our court system are finite and for this a potential plaintiff must satisfy a number of requirements. Before an individual can argue their case before a judge he must show standing. He must show that he has personally had his rights violated, and further that he has sustained some kind of loss. If the victim has a legitimate complaint the matter must be resolved by a judge, or a jury of his peers. Through fact-finding the issues at stake are converted into hard legal questions. Through a decision al process an output, or ruling, is issued.

In most cases this settles a dispute. In many others it spells the beginning of years of political and judicial wrangling, which sees laws upheld, struck down and created For a person to gain access to the courts they must satisfy several requirements. As Iv already mentioned, a person must show that he has personally had his rights violated. Further, he must have sustained some kind of loss. A party that fails to show that a law has, or will, harm him will be found to lack standing. Section 2, article 3 of the constitution enumerates three criteria to gain standing in the courts.

First, judicial power must extend to all cases, and controversies. An injury must have actually occurred, or be imminent. Further, the injury must pertain to the zone of interest meant to be regulated or protected under the statutory or constitutional in question. After this a judge or prosecutor will ask if causation is directly attributable to the named defendant. Finally, a plaintiff must show. Redressibility is the plaintiff's ability to sue, and win.

A circumstantial argument on the part of the plaintiff is not enough. They must show how they want the court to rule, and how that ruling will correct the injustice. Im the case of Lujan vs. Defenders of wildlife the Supreme Court define requirements. They stated that the party invoking federal jurisdiction must establish and measure up to each of these three requirements.

The obstacles to attaining standing don't end here. The prohibition of third party standing asserts that third parties, with an interest in a cases outcome, may not file on behalf of the offended. The prohibition of generalized grievances holds that a plaintiff cannot sue as a tax payer on the grounds of grievances shared by all tax payers. In Frothingham vs. Mellon (1923) the court holds that a federal tax payer is without standing to challenge the constitutionality of a federal statute. Foe 45 years Frothingham has prevented challenges to acts of congress. For a suit to reach the chambers of the Supreme Court it must satisfy many, more rigorous, and arbitrary requirements.

A plaintiff, who files a writ of certiorari will only be heard if their case is "ripe" for adjudication. This means that society has wrestled with this subject long enough, and is ready to have a definitive ruling in the matter. If a case is too ripe it will fall off the tree and rot. In this case it will be denied a hearing under the "moot ness" doctrine, as the matter is no longer contentious. An exception to the moot ness doctrine was established by Justice Stewart in Roe vs. Wade, when he reasoned that by the time a case could be heard, the pregnancy would have ended (in one way or another). In the case of Sierra Club vs. Morton (1972), the Sierra club filed suit on behalf of the public, but since they could not show a direct injury, the case was denied standing.

In the 60's class action suits became a popular avenue to addressing widespread instances of discrimination. Today they are employed in a variety of cases. While they were first allowed as an efficient way to address many of the same complaint, today they are abused, and thus subject to higher standing requirements. In Zahn vs. International Paper Company (1973) citizens in multiple states sued the company for damages suffered as a result of river pollution. In this case the court amended the collective damage minimum to $10,000 for each person. This, along with huge lawyer fees, and notification requirements greatly reduced class action suits.

Our court system is generally hostile to those parties not directly involved in a dispute, but avenues do exist, which allow interest groups some influence in matters of public policy. Test cases are sponsored by an interest group on behalf of an adversely effected individual. They help the plaintiff's case be heard, while advancing the interest groups own agenda. A good example of a successful test case is Thompson vs. Louisville (1960).

Other ways for third parties to ethically influence the court include the filling of Amicus Curiae (friends of the court) briefs. These concern "someone who is not a part to the litigation, but who believes that the court's decision may effect its interests". An Curiae brief should be filed in conjunction with the writ of certiorari, and when the court decides if the case is ripe, and has standing. The curiae brief is a institutional alternative to direct lobbying of judges, which is considered unethical on account of the judges "apolitical" position. Once a case has shown standing; once third parties have made their interests known, and the courts have decided to hear a case, the real legal process begins. In the common law system the judge has a limited role.

He acts as a mediator, making sure the parties follow the law, and stick to the defined issues. The judges first obligation is to determine the specific issues involved in a case. E then defines the appropriate rules of law to apply under the circumstances. Ours is an adversarial process. The arguments of the contending parties lay out the case, while the judge makes sure hey keep to the ground rules. Unlike the civil law system, defendants are not required to testify, and the fifth amendment protects citizens from self-incrimination.

While fact-finding is a judicial activity, the judges primary role is that of referee. Under the sixth amendment we are guaranteed a fair and speedy trial. We are also guaranteed a trial which is open to public scrutiny, but when intense media coverage threatens the fairness of a trial a judge may curtail this point. One of the first examples of adverse media attention effecting a trial occurred during the trial of Sam Shepherd in 1965. Guarantees of due process are embodied in both the fifth and fourteenth amendment. These assert individual rights, like that of privacy.

The fourteenth amendment extends the bill of rights to all citizens in the 50 states. When a person confesses to a crime under pain of torture, or when evidence is illegally seized, justice is sought under the fourteenth amendment. In the decision al process different types of fact are presented. Adjudicative facts are specific facts, such as who, where, when, what, and how. Legislative facts provide the structure, under which the decision is to be found. Legislative facts have to do with socio-economic or psychological issues which bare on the case.

The Scopes Monkey trial, for instance, dealt primarily with legislative facts, also known as "soft" facts. Adjudicative, or "hard" facts, pertain to physical evidence, such as fingerprints, and eye-witness accounts. Both kinds of facts are important. One provides a framework for further inquiry, while the other answers the questions with facts.

The fact finding portion of adjudication insures that a case is tried, using all available evidence. Evidence is gathered in many ways, including direct questioning. When a person is the source of evidence in a case his rights are limited. An individual may find himself in what has come to be called a "cruel trilemma" In such an instance the person is faced with either admitting guilt, lying, or remaining silent, and possibly face contempt.

A person in this position is said to have "probative" control, because they technically control their own fate. Probative control can be ignored in light of hard, scientific testing or data. To ensure that all available evidence is heard, the fact finding portion of a case must be thorough. Prima facie facts are those, hard, undeniable facts which arise in the discovery phase of a trial. Civil suits are decided on a preponderance of evidence, that is whichever party provides more evidence in support of their position. In criminal trials, in which the outcomes amount to a guilty or not guilty verdict, the accused must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a trial by jury there are several requirements set forth by the constitution. The fifth amendment requires a gand jury indictment paneled by 16-23 jurors. It takes 12 votes to force prosecution in the case. The sixth amendment concerns the petit or jury trial. A jury is to act as a buffer between the accused and the state. Both kinds of juries are supposed to protect citizens from malicious prosecution by the state.

It also subjects them to the values of the community instead of the state. A jury is supposed to pass judgement based solely on the evidence provided at trial, but if the judge feels that a guilty verdict was reached for other reasons, such as prejudices of jurors, he may nullify the verdict, and order a new trial. The real power of nullification lies in the deliberation room. It is here that a jury can ignore establish laws and precedents in view of special circumstances.

The only real requirement in convening a jury is that it be random. Jurors can not be eliminated based on race, sex or religion, and since 1960 jurors cannot be eliminated based on philosophical opposition to the death penalty. When a jury is being selected both parties ask question of the jurors. They both have the ability to strike jurors for various reasons, or they can agree to eliminating jurors. The idea is to assemble a panel of citizens which are representative of the community, and its values. If a jury has been manipulated to favor one side, it is said to have been "stacked".

As juries have the final say in a case, it is up to the judge to interpret the law. Our system is one of induction. It draws general principals from precedent, and applies them to the present. Much can be gathered from the past, but what really matters is the weighing and judgement of the immediate facts in question.

Whether or not these facts have been obtained and presented in an acceptable manner is up to the judge. As I will mention in my following discussion of stare dec isis, judges are guided by precedent, but not always bound by it. In court one of the parties may claim that, while similar to prior cases, theirs is unique, and deserves to be treated as such. It is the responsibility of the judge research prior rulings, collect all the available data, and be knowledgeable about the facts. This is what allows him to set aside the, less important, outer layers of the case, and identify the core issues, or ratio, of the case. Precedent is only really applied to the main issues in a case, so it's important to identify these issues early on.

When the case is decided, the core issues are again enumerated in the judges opinion. When a court decides a case, the largest part of the adjudicating process has often just begun. When a case is decided, the court must secure compliance with their ruling, and foresee its social and political implications. At times, the independent nature of the court would have us doubt its political nature.

The fact is that whenever the court decides a matter of public policy it is acting in a political capacity. Like actors in the other branches of government judges have only so much political capital to spare. If they misjudge their capacity to alter public behavior they invite opposition to themselves and the judiciary. It stands that effective decision making includes a rational assessment of public opinion, the likelihood of compliance with the ruling, and the broader impact of their mandate. In common cases of civil and criminal litigation judges wield a degree of coercive power.

They can punish the immediate parties for contempt by fine or imprisonment. This power doesn't extend to the numerous private citizens and public officials who are technically not bound by the court's decision. When the Supreme court entered its final decree in Brown vs. Board of Education in 1955, it directed only four school boards to desegregate. A fifth case, Bolling vs. Sharpe, delivered a similar order to schools in the district of Columbia. While any ruling by a court has status as precedent, under the principals of stare dec isis, the Supreme court is the highest tribunal in the nation, and its decisions on federal matters should be fallowed by all other courts. For the Supreme Court to be effective beyond a particular piece of litigation it's demands must be practical, they must be clear, and they must be apparent to those they effect.

In cases like Roberts vs. United States Jaycees, which were ripe for adjudication, parties see the writing on the wall. Compliance is swift, and precedent is applied without further litigation. In cases like those dealing with desegregation, the courts have met the opposition of whole sections of the country which are unwilling to change. It is the responsibility of the court to anticipate a decisions consequences, and they do.

The constant arbitration of Right and Wrong is a role played by gods. The courts are to provide practical avenues to attainable justice under law and the constitution. The court may be reluctant to pass judgement when its clear that a decision will be willfully disobeyed, so they deliberate. They weigh possible outcomes of alternative rulings. They also ask the parties what reaction they expect from certain rulings. "If justices want to generate lasting policy, they must be attentive to the preferences of the other institutions and anticipate reactions of those other officials are likely to take".

(Murphy) When a court anticipates a negative impact to its decision it can avoid ruling on the matter. In the case of Baker vs. Carr justice Frankfurter reasoned that the courts lacked the means to carry out reapportionment, and that "even the attempt to do so would lesson judicial prestige by embroiling judges in partisan political debates". Judges have since skirted dangerous issues under what has come to be know as the political question doctrine. Other consequences of new constitutional doctrine include retro action under new decrees. This holds that when a change is announced it should guide future action along with the correction of previous errors. For this judges must consider all the cases which may be overturned in light of their shift.

Judges have avoided this problem by issuing specifically prospective rulings, that is rulings which only apply to present and future cases. This was the case in Linklater vs. Walker when the courts refused to apply the Miranda ruling retroactively. Sometimes all the anticipation and deliberation doesn't matter. A case must be decided, and if a decision is unpopular resistance to it can take several forms. Foot dragging, new law suits, efforts to reverse the decision by legislation or constitutional amendment, threats against the tenure of the judges, attempts to limit jurisdiction. The list goes on and on.

Larry Flint threw oranges at one of his many judges. Aside from the powers of contempt the courts must wait for cases to come to them. The United States courts are an adversarial system. Only those cases arising among plaintive's directly involved in a real dispute are heard.

For this the US system is slow but strong. The main tool in the judiciary's arsenal is its prestige. The Supreme Court controls not a budget or an army, but it has power. Presidents, banks, school boards and prisons abide by its decisions, in the faith that it is working under larger principals which apply to all citizens. When a party disobeys the court they are challenging something much larger than nine justices. Nixon realized this as did Al Gore and President Truman.

If however, the nine justices lose their way; if they fall too far ahead or behind the political climate that's all they cease to be, nine people in robes. Even if a decision is ignored or disobeyed a ruling has other effects. Precedent opens the courts up to disaffected groups. Brown vs. Board of education "did more to get black children into the courts as litigants than into formerly all white schools as students". (Murphy) The courts decision is far from a resolution. It is part of an evolution, which recognizes the slow pace of change.

After school integration, no issue has been more contentious than that of abortion. In the years fallowing the decision in Roe vs. Wade every attempt has been made to reverse, avoid or obstruct its implications. As in the case of Dred Scott vs. Sandford (1857) attempts were made to obtain a constitutional amendment. This would have been the strongest refutation of the courts, but it failed. In this area we see that power eventually falls back to Congress and the people.

The fourteenth amendment passed under rather extreme circumstances, but an amendment prohibiting abortion never got ff the ground. The fallowing decades saw Roe challenged in the most creative ways. Roe went to show that anticipation only goes so far. We have an intentionally porous system which requires judges to think ahead, and to clarify themselves after the fact.

Today anti-abortion legislation, which clearly violates Roe vs. Wade, still finds itself before congress. It is challenged and supported in the beltway as it is in the courts. Our constitution, as a living document, demands this kind of tension. A climatic and decisive judiciary would see us living in a segregated society in which abortion was a crime and the economy was unregulated. That our courts revisit, uphold or strike down their own rulings is vital. It assures a living breathing method of dispute resolution, in which parties are less inclined to take up arms in their cause, or pursue their ends outside of the law.

The impact of court opinions is generally felt first by the parties involves, and then by the local state and federal legislatures. Between 1967 and 1990 Congress enacted legislation to "correct" more than 340 pieces of statutory interpretation by federal courts. The effectiveness of controversial court opinions relies on several factors. The constitutional standard upon which an opinion is based must be a simple one. Decisions in which the court reads new principals into the constitution are always the most contentious, and the hardest to implement. The judiciary must also have control over the means by which to effectuate enforcement of these principals.

The third requirement has to do with the degree of public acquiescence. This holds that there is "no need for agreement, simply the absence of opposition-in the principal and its application". (words of Justice Felix Frankfurter) This was largely the case in Bush vs. Gore (2000). By the time the court heard the case the weary public, and the (Republican) powers in Florida, mounted no strong opposition in the court. James S. Spriggs the Second would have us add another predictor of effectiveness. The specificity of the Court's opinion, he argues, is a prime determinant in compliance.

In the end it takes more than Court prestige; it takes more than litigation and legislation. When people assert their rights, and demand the respect and recognition that accompany those rights, action is forced on the Court. In the face of apathy the court has never ruled.