What role does judicial philosophy play in the nomination process? ...

(Ans. #1)

An ideal response will:
1. Discuss how differences in constitutional interpretation can produce vastly different outcomes on the same legal question; presidents and senators want to know how candidates see the appropriate role of the courts.
2. Explain that a proponent of judicial restraint would propose that judges should strike down the actions of the elected branches only if they clearly violate the Constitution; it would be appropriate for the courts to strike down popularly enacted legislation only when it violates the letter of the Constitution.
3. Explain that a proponent of judicial activism would propose that judges can freely strike down laws enacted by the democratically elected branches; the candidate would believe that the courts should strike down acts of the elected branches if they violate broad norms and values that might not be explicitly stated in the Constitution.
4. Describe that at the heart of this debate are competing conceptions of the proper balance between government authority and individual rights, and the power of democratically accountable legislatures and unelected judges.

(Ans. #2)

An ideal response will:
1. Explain that by communicating with members of Congress, we can pressure them to pass legislation that limits the Court's ruling.
2. Discuss how we can organize to oppose a particular nomination to the federal judiciary.
3. Describe that when making our voting decisions, we can consider the type of judge a presidential candidate is likely to appoint to the federal judiciary.

(Ans. #3)

An ideal response will:
1. Describe how the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) was an active one in that it struck down the state law requiring racial segregation in the public schools.
2. Explain that the Court's ability to take such action is often seen as an important check on the tyranny of the majority.

(Ans. #4)

An ideal response will:
1. Note that the United States has both state and federal courts.
2. Describe the types of cases that can be heard only by the federal courts.
3. Explain that the majority of cases are decided by state courts.
4. Discuss the power of the federal courts to review the decisions of state courts.

Correct again