10/11 Wed Judicial Decisions Videos

What are the factors that influence the way Supreme Court justices decide cases?

• The structure of the court system

• Congress and the President

• Historical impact and philosophical orientation

• All of the above

Answer explanation

The question asks about the factors influencing Supreme Court justices' decisions. The correct answer is 'All of the above'. The structure of the court system, the influence of Congress and the President, and factors like historical impact and philosophical orientation, all significantly influence the way justices decide cases.

How does Congress influence Supreme Court decisions?

• By directly overturning a law if the Court rules against it

• By selecting and confirming justices

• By studying the decisions made by the Court

• By influencing lower court justices

Answer explanation

The Congress holds the power to influence Supreme Court decisions by directly overturning a law if the Court rules against it. This means if the Supreme Court makes a ruling that Congress disagrees with, it can enact a new law to counter the court's decision. This option highlights the checks and balances system, illustrating how the different branches of government can influence each other.

What is the role of the President in influencing judicial decisions?

• The President has minimal effect on judicial decisions

• The President can directly influence Supreme Court decisions

• The President can select and confirm justices

• The President can veto Supreme Court decisions

Answer explanation

The role of the President in influencing judicial decisions is not through direct influence or vetoing decisions. Instead, the President has the power to select and confirm justices to the Supreme Court. This is the main way they can shape the trajectory of the court and, indirectly, its decisions.

How does history influence Supreme Court decisions?

• By constraining the possible decisions through precedent

• By studying the decisions made by previous justices

• By considering the broader social implications of decisions

• All of the above

Answer explanation

The history plays a significant role in Supreme Court decisions. Precedent constrains possible decisions, studying the decisions of previous justices offers insights, and considering broad social implications ensures the relevancy of decisions. Therefore, all the given options are influential in Supreme Court decisions.

What is the difference between judicial activism and judicial restraint?

• Judicial activism focuses on interpreting the Constitution as it was written, while judicial restraint considers broader social implications

• Judicial activism involves making policy decisions, while judicial restraint relies on precedent and incremental changes

• Judicial activism is associated with conservative justices, while judicial restraint is associated with liberal justices

• There is no difference between judicial activism and judicial restraint

Answer explanation

The correct answer highlights the unique roles of judicial activism and judicial restraint. Judicial activism implies the judiciary's role in policy-making, often leading to significant legal changes. On the other hand, judicial restraint emphasizes adherence to legal precedents and gradual changes. Therefore, these two concepts represent different ways the judiciary can interpret and apply laws.

Which historical moments were associated with judicial activism and judicial restraint?

• The 50s and mid-70s for judicial activism, and the 1980s through the early 2000s for judicial restraint

• The 1980s through the early 2000s for judicial activism, and the 50s and mid-70s for judicial restraint

• The 50s and mid-70s for both judicial activism and judicial restraint

• The 1980s through the early 2000s for both judicial activism and judicial restraint

Answer explanation

The question asked for the time periods associated with judicial activism and judicial restraint. The answer is the 50s and mid-70s for judicial activism, and the 1980s through the early 2000s for judicial restraint. This is because during the 50s and mid 70s, the Supreme Court made more activist decisions while during the 80s to early 2000s, the court was more restrained.

Can conservative justices practice judicial activism?

• No, conservative justices always practice judicial restraint

• Yes, conservative justices can practice both judicial activism and judicial restraint

• No, conservative justices are always politically liberal

• Yes, conservative justices are always politically conservative

Answer explanation

Judicial activism and judicial restraint are methods of interpretation that a judge uses when ruling on a case. While conservative justices often lean towards judicial restraint, it is not a hard and fast rule. A conservative justice can also practice judicial activism when they feel it necessary. Therefore, the statement that conservative justices can practice both judicial activism and judicial restraint is correct.

What is one example of a recent Supreme Court decision that was considered activist?

• Citizens United case

• Voting Rights Act

• Dred Scott case

• Brown v. Board of Education

Answer explanation

The Citizens United case is considered an example of a recent activist Supreme Court decision. In this case, the court ruled that corporations and unions have the same political speech rights as individuals under the First Amendment. It is considered activist due to the significant changes it brought about in campaign finance laws.

What is one example of a recent Supreme Court decision that was considered restrained?

• Citizens United case

• Voting Rights Act

• Dred Scott case

• Brown v. Board of Education

Answer explanation

The Voting Rights Act is an example of a restrained Supreme Court decision. This act, unlike the other options such as Citizens United case, Dred Scott case, and Brown v. Board of Education, had a more restrained approach in its application and interpretation of the law, focusing more on preserving the status quo rather than promoting extensive changes.

Are all Supreme Court decisions highly political?

• Yes, all decisions are highly political

• No, decisions are based solely on the Constitution

• Yes, except for the decision to end this video

• No, decisions are based on the personal beliefs of the justices

Answer explanation

The correct answer is 'Yes, except for the decision to end this video'. This implies that while Supreme Court decisions do have a political aspect, not every decision is politically driven. The option about ending a video adds a touch of humor and signals that the decisions can sometimes transcend politics.