Judicial Decisions: Crash Course Government and Politics #22

Summary

This Crash Course video explores the factors influencing U.S. Supreme Court justices' decisions, beyond the Constitution. It covers the impact of Congress, history, judicial philosophy, and political ideologies like judicial activism and judicial restraint. Justices are not immune to political pressures, despite being independent, and their decisions often reflect their personal judicial philosophies. The video also highlights how political parties, the president, and historical precedent shape court rulings, with examples from past courts and justices. Ultimately, the video illustrates that Supreme Court decisions are deeply political and influenced by multiple factors.

Takeaways

• 😀 Justices are influenced by a range of factors beyond the Constitution, including Congress, the President, history, political ideology, and judicial philosophy.
• 😀 Congress can respond to Supreme Court decisions by passing new laws, especially when the case does not directly involve the Constitution.
• 😀 Once appointed, the President has minimal influence over Supreme Court decisions, though political ideologies may influence the selection process of lower court justices.
• 😀 Justices are conscious of historical implications and the long-term impact of their decisions, with landmark cases often shaping American history.
• 😀 The principle of stare decisis, or following precedent, plays a significant role in constraining judicial decisions.
• 😀 Judicial activism involves justices making policy-driven decisions that may overturn laws, typically associated with liberal justices but not always.
• 😀 Judicial restraint focuses on adhering to precedent and making gradual, incremental changes, often associated with conservative justices but not always.
• 😀 Judicial philosophy (activism vs. restraint) differs from political ideology (liberal vs. conservative), though the two can sometimes overlap.
• 😀 Judicial activists tend to consider the broader social implications of their rulings, while judicial restraint advocates prefer limited intervention and slow progress.
• 😀 The ideological leanings of justices can influence the Court's decisions, with conservative justices sometimes exhibiting activism, as seen in the *Citizens United* case.
• 😀 Despite political beliefs, all justices are aware that their rulings are political and have real-world consequences, shaping the legal landscape for generations.

Q & A

What factors influence the way Supreme Court justices make decisions, apart from the structure of the court system?

Supreme Court justices are influenced by factors such as Congress, history, political ideology, judicial philosophy, and the practical implications of their decisions, including how those decisions will be implemented by the executive branch or impact future legal cases.

How does Congress influence Supreme Court decisions?

Congress can influence Supreme Court decisions by passing new laws in response to decisions that overturn previous laws. This is especially relevant when a case does not directly involve the Constitution.

What role does the President play in judicial decisions once justices are confirmed?

Once justices are confirmed, the President has minimal influence on their decisions, although the President’s appointments to lower courts may affect future Supreme Court appointments and influence judicial behavior.

How does the history of a decision impact the Supreme Court?

Justices are aware of the historical impact of their decisions, knowing that they will be studied by historians and lawyers for generations. Landmark cases like Dred Scott, Brown v. Board, and Roe v. Wade are examples of decisions with long-lasting historical consequences.

What is the difference between judicial activism and judicial restraint?

Judicial activism involves judges making decisions that go beyond the text of the Constitution, often considering broader social implications and aiming to influence policy. Judicial restraint, on the other hand, encourages judges to adhere closely to precedent and make incremental legal changes.

How do political ideologies of justices affect their decisions?

While justices’ political ideologies, such as liberal or conservative leanings, can influence their rulings, they may not always align with judicial philosophies like activism or restraint. Political ideology affects the selection process, but its impact on decisions can vary.

Can judicial activism be associated with a specific political ideology?

Judicial activism is often linked with liberal or Democratic justices, but it is not exclusive to them. For example, conservative justices may also practice judicial activism in certain cases, such as overturning previous precedents to align with their policy goals.

What role does the concept of 'stare decisis' play in Supreme Court decisions?

'Stare decisis' refers to the principle of respecting precedent in legal decisions. It constrains the options available to justices, ensuring that they consider previous rulings when making their decisions.

How did the judicial philosophies of the Warren and Rehnquist courts differ?

The Warren Court (1950s-1970s) was known for judicial activism, making progressive decisions on civil rights and privacy. The Rehnquist Court (1980s-2000s) practiced judicial restraint, aiming to limit federal power and return some authority to the states.

What is the significance of the Citizens United case in the context of judicial activism?

The Citizens United case is an example of judicial activism, as it broke with previous precedent to allow for increased campaign fundraising, which aligned with the interests of political conservatives. This decision exemplified how justices can be activist even if they lean politically conservative.