   #copyright

Supreme Court of the United States

2007 Schools Wikipedia Selection. Related subjects: Law

          United States of America
             The Supreme Court
   of the United States
                 The Court
   Main Article  · Decisions
   Process  · History  · Building
               Chief Justice
   John Roberts
             Associate Justices
   John Paul Stevens ·  Antonin Scalia
   Anthony Kennedy ·  David Souter
   Clarence Thomas ·  Ruth Bader Ginsburg
   Stephen Breyer ·  Samuel Alito
         Retired Associate Justice
   Sandra Day O'Connor
                All members
   By Court · By seat · By time in office
   Chief Justices · By time in office
   All nominations
   Unsuccessful nominations
   Court demographics

   The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in
   the United States and is the only part of the judicial branch of the
   United States federal government explicitly specified in the United
   States Constitution. It is assigned the highest appellate authority
   among the Courts that Congress is authorized to create.

   The court consists of nine Justices: The Chief Justice of the United
   States and eight Associate Justices. The Justices are nominated by the
   President and confirmed with the " advice and consent" of the Senate.
   They are appointed to serve "during a term of good behaviour," which
   almost always means for life, and leave office only upon death,
   retirement, resignation, or impeachment and subsequent conviction.

   The Supreme Court is the only Court established in the United States
   Constitution (in Article III). Congress creates all other federal
   courts:

     The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one
     supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from
     time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme
     and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,
     and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a
     Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance
     in Office.

   The Supreme Court has both original and appellate jurisdiction, with
   appellate jurisdiction accounting for most of the Court's caseload. The
   Court's original jurisdiction (in which it is the first and only court
   to rule) is narrowly focused, as defined in Article III, Section 2 of
   the Constitution: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public
   Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the
   supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction." The Court's appellate
   jurisdiction encompasses "all cases" within the scope of Article III,
   but is subject to limitation imposed by acts of Congress under the
   Exceptions Clause in Article III, and by the discretion of the Court.

   The Supreme Court meets in Washington, D.C., in the United States
   Supreme Court building. The Court is sometimes unofficially referred to
   by the abbreviations SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) and
   USSC (United States Supreme Court). The Court's yearly terms usually
   start on the first Monday in October and technically continue for a
   full year, although in practice the Court usually does not convene
   between late June and late September. Each term consists of alternating
   two-week intervals. During the first interval, the Court is in session
   ('sitting') and hears cases, and during the second interval, Court
   hearings are recessed to consider and write opinions on cases they have
   heard.

History

   The Supreme Court met in this windowless chamber in the United States
   Capitol from 1819 until 1860. The room has been restored, and is now
   preserved as the Old Supreme Court Chamber.
   Enlarge
   The Supreme Court met in this windowless chamber in the United States
   Capitol from 1819 until 1860. The room has been restored, and is now
   preserved as the Old Supreme Court Chamber.

   The Supreme Court's history is often distinguished by using the name of
   the Chief Justice during the period of interest. Thus, for example, the
   Court between 1969 and 1986 is referred to as the "Burger Court" (for
   Chief Justice Warren E. Burger) and the Court between 1986 and 2005 is
   referred to as the "Rehnquist Court" (for Chief Justice William
   Rehnquist).

   Initially, during the tenures of Chief Justices Jay, Rutledge, and
   Ellsworth (1789–1801), the Court lacked a home of its own and, having
   not established a clear position in the governmental hierarchy, it had
   little real power or prestige.

   That changed during the Marshall Court (1801–1835), during which
   precedent was established which declared the Court to be the supreme
   arbiter of the Constitution.

   That Court also made several important rulings which gave shape and
   substance to the Constitutional balance of power between the Federal
   government (referred to at the time as the "general" government) and
   the states. But Martin v. Hunter's Lessee established limits on Federal
   power—although the Federal Supreme Court declared itself supreme over
   Virginia's highest court, there were practical difficulties enforcing
   its judgment in a hostile state. The Marshall Court ended the practice
   of each judge issuing his opinion seriatim, a remnant of British
   tradition, and instead issued one majority "opinion of the Court" in
   each case. The Marshall Court also saw Congress impeach and try a
   sitting Justice, Samuel Chase, who was acquitted. This impeachment was
   part of the power struggle between the Jeffersonians and the
   Federalists after the election of 1800 and the subsequent change in
   power. Failure to remove Chase is thought to be a signal that Congress
   recognized judicial independence.

   The Taney Court (1836–1864) made several important rulings, such as
   Sheldon v. Sill, which held that while Congress may not limit the
   subjects the Supreme Court may hear, the Constitution does not so
   restrain Congress in regard to the lower Federal courts. However, the
   Taney Court is primarily remembered for its ruling in Dred Scott v.
   Sandford, the case which was a part of the conflict between slave
   holding interests (largely in the South) and other commercial and
   religious interests (largely in the North). In the years following the
   Civil War, the Chase (1864-1873), Waite (1873-1888), and Fuller
   (1888-1910) Courts interpreted the new Reconstruction Amendments to the
   Constitution, and among other things developed the doctrine of
   substantive due process ( Lochner v. New York; Adair v. United States).
   Under the White (1910-1921) and Taft (1921-1930) Courts, the
   substantive due process doctrine reached its first apogee ( Adkins v.
   Children's Hospital), and the Court held for the first time that the
   14th Amendment applied some provisions of the Bill of Rights to the
   states ( Gitlow v. New York).

   During the Hughes (1930-1941), Stone (1941-1946), and Vinson
   (1946-1953) Courts, the Supreme Court finally got a building (see
   United States Supreme Court building) and radically changed its
   interpretation of the Constitution, which facilitated some of the New
   Deal policies of President Roosevelt and the Congress of the 1930s. for
   instance, West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish gave an expanded application
   of the powers of the Federal Government, as compared to the previously
   understood more limited role.

   The Warren Court (1953–1969) made several alternately celebrated, then
   often controversial, rulings expanding the application of the
   Constitution to civil liberties, leading a considerable change in the
   scope of substantive due process. It held that segregation was
   unconstitutional ( Brown v. Board of Education) in public (ie, tax
   supported) schooling, that the Constitution protects a general right to
   privacy ( Griswold v. Connecticut), that schools cannot sponsor or
   impose official prayer on students ( Engel v. Vitale) nor mandatory
   Bible readings either ( Abington School District v. Schempp),
   dramatically increased the scope of the doctrine of incorporation (
   Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona), found that the Fifth Amendment (
   Bolling v. Sharpe) required equal protection of the laws to all, held
   that the states may not apportion a chamber of their legislatures in
   the manner in which the United States Senate is apportioned ( Reynolds
   v. Sims), and held that the Constitution requires active compliance (
   Gideon v. Wainwright).

   The Burger Court (1969–1986) ruled that abortion was included in the
   Constitutionally protected right to privacy ( Roe v. Wade), made
   several somewhat contradictory rulings on affirmative action ( Regents
   of the University of California v. Bakke) and campaign finance
   regulation ( Buckley v. Valeo), and ruled that the death penalty was
   unconstitutional as it violated the cruel and unusual prohibition in
   the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution ( Furman v. Georgia), but
   later held that it was not unconstitutional after all if done in
   particular ways ( Gregg v. Georgia).

   The Rehnquist Court (1986–2005) narrowed the scope of private right of
   action, the right of labor unions to picket ( Lechmere Inc. v. NLRB),
   and of the ruling in Roe v. Wade regarding abortion ( Planned
   Parenthood v. Casey), but dramatically restricted state range of action
   in regulating abortion ( Stenberg v. Carhart), gave sweeping meaning to
   ERISA pre-emption ( Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., Egelhoff v.
   Egelhoff) thereby denying plaintiffs access to state court with the
   consequence of limiting compensation for tort-like harm to medical
   patients covered by employer plans to very circumscribed remedies (
   Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, CIGNA Healthcare of Texas Inc. v. Calad)
   and began a very striking expansion of a kind of federalism, limiting
   the scope of Congressional power under the Constitution's Commerce
   Clause ( United States v. Lopez; United States v. Morrison).

   The Roberts Court (2005-present) began with the confirmation and
   swearing in of John Roberts on September 29, 2005, and is the current
   court.

Composition

Size of the court

   The Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States as of 2006. Top
   row (left to right): Stephen G. Breyer, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader
   Ginsburg, and Samuel A. Alito. Bottom row (left to right): Anthony M.
   Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Antonin G.
   Scalia, and David H. Souter.
   Enlarge
   The Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States as of 2006. Top
   row (left to right): Stephen G. Breyer, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader
   Ginsburg, and Samuel A. Alito. Bottom row (left to right): Anthony M.
   Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Antonin G.
   Scalia, and David H. Souter.

   The United States Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme
   Court; instead, Congress has the power to fix the number of Justices.
   Originally, the total number of Justices was set at six by the
   Judiciary Act of 1789. As the country grew geographically, the number
   of Justices steadily increased to correspond with the growing number of
   judicial circuits. The court was expanded to seven members in 1807,
   nine in 1837 and ten in 1863. In 1866, however, Congress wished to deny
   President Andrew Johnson any Supreme Court appointments, and therefore
   passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which provided that the next three
   Justices to retire would not be replaced; thus, the size of the Court
   would eventually reach seven by attrition. Consequently, one seat was
   removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. The Circuit Judges Act of 1869
   again set the number of judges at nine (the Chief Justice and eight
   Associate Justices), where it has remained ever since.

   President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court in his
   proposed Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937. His plan would have
   allowed the President to appoint one new, additional justice for every
   justice who reached the age of seventy but did not retire from the
   bench, until the Court reached a maximum size of fifteen justices.
   Ostensibly, this was to ease the burdens of the docket on the elderly
   judges, but it was widely believed that the President's actual purpose
   was to add Justices who would favour his New Deal policies, which had
   been regularly ruled unconstitutional by the Court. This plan, referred
   to often as the Court Packing Plan, failed in Congress. The Court,
   however, moved from its opposition to Roosevelt's New Deal programs,
   rendering the President's effort moot (see the switch in time that
   saved nine). In any case, Roosevelt's long tenure in the White House
   allowed him to appoint eight Justices to the Supreme Court and promote
   one Associate Justice to Chief Justice; upon his death in 1945, all but
   one of the Court's members were his appointees.

Nomination, confirmation and tenure of Justices

   Article II of the United States Constitution accords the power to
   appoint Justices to the President of the United States, acting with the
   " advice and consent" of the Senate. As a general rule, Presidents
   nominate individuals who broadly share their ideological views.
   However, the Senate may decline to confirm for any reason, including
   those whose views are perceived as extreme (see list of failed Supreme
   Court nominations). In many cases, a Justice's decisions after being
   confirmed to the Court may be contrary to what the nominating President
   anticipated. A famous instance was Chief Justice Earl Warren; President
   Eisenhower expected him to be a conservative judge (he had been a
   famous and active prosecutor in California), but his decisions are
   arguably among the most liberal in the Court's history. Eisenhower
   later called the appointment "the biggest damn fool mistake I ever
   made".

   While the President may nominate anyone (there are no Constitutional
   qualifications for prior legal or judicial experience, nor are there
   any exclusions of foreign-born nominees), the "advice and consent" of
   the Senate is required. The confirmation process often attracts
   considerable attention from special-interest groups, many of which
   lobby senators to confirm or to reject in the expectation that the
   Justice will rule particular ways after joining the Court. The Senate
   Judiciary Committee conducts hearings, questioning nominees to
   determine their suitability. Thereafter, the whole Senate considers the
   nomination in the light of the Committee's report; a simple majority
   vote is required to confirm a nominee. Failed confirmations are
   relatively uncommon; the Senate has explicitly rejected only twelve
   nominees since 1787. The most recent Senate refusal to confirm came in
   1987, when the Senate refused to confirm Robert Bork. In 1991, Clarence
   Thomas's nomination became controversial after allegations of sexual
   harassment from a former employee (and law professor -- Anita Hill),
   but the Senate eventually confirmed him by a vote of 52-48.

   Not everyone nominated by the President has received a floor vote in
   the Senate. Although Senate rules do not allow a Supreme Court nominee
   to be blocked in committee, a nominee may be filibustered once debate
   on his nomination has begun in the full Senate. A filibuster
   indefinitely prolongs the debate thereby preventing a final vote on the
   nominee. It is also possible for the President to withdraw a nominee's
   name at any time before the actual confirmation vote occurs. This
   usually happens when the President feels that the nominee has little
   chance of being confirmed. Most recently, President George W. Bush
   granted a request by Harriet Miers to withdraw her 2005 nomination
   before even a committee hearing had been scheduled, citing Miers'
   concerns about Senate requests during her confirmation process for
   access to internal Executive Branch documents resulting from her
   position as White House Counsel. Prior to that, President Ronald Reagan
   in 1987 withdrew the name of Douglas H. Ginsburg soon after the
   announcement of his nomination because of allegations of marijuana use.

   While Senators may attempt to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee in an
   attempt to prevent confirmation, no nomination for Associate Justice
   has ever been filibustered. However, President Lyndon Johnson's
   nomination of sitting Associate Justice Abe Fortas to succeed Earl
   Warren as Chief Justice was successfully filibustered in 1968.

   Until the 1980s, the approval process of Justices was frequently quick.
   From the Truman through Nixon administrations, Justices were typically
   approved within one month. From the Reagan administration through the
   current administration (George W. Bush), the process has often taken
   much longer. Some speculate this is because of the increasingly
   political role Justices are said to be playing (ie, ' judicial
   activism').

   When the Senate is in recess, the President may make a temporary
   appointment without the Senate's advice and consent. Such a recess
   appointee to the Supreme Court holds office only until the end of the
   next Senate session (at most, less than two years). To continue to
   serve thereafter, and to be compensated for his or her service, the
   Senate must confirm the nominee. Of the two Chief Justices and six
   Associate Justices who have received recess appointments, only Chief
   Justice John Rutledge was not subsequently confirmed for a full term.
   No President since Dwight Eisenhower has made a recess appointment to
   the Supreme Court, and the practice has become highly controversial
   even when applied to lower federal courts.

   The Constitution provides that Justices "shall hold their Offices
   during good Behavior" (unless appointed during a Senate recess). The
   term "good behaviour" is understood to mean life tenure. However,
   Justices may resign, retire, or be removed by impeachment and then
   conviction by Congressional vote (this last has never occurred). On
   average, a vacancy arises every two years; however, long stretches
   without any vacancies occur from time to time. For instance, no vacancy
   arose for the eleven years between Stephen Breyer's appointment in 1994
   and Chief Justice William Rehnquist's death in 2005.

Other functions

   Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, each Justice was required to "ride
   circuit", or to travel within the assigned circuit and to consider
   cases alongside local judges. However, this practice encountered
   opposition from many Justices, who complained about the difficulty of
   travel. Moreover, several individuals opposed it on the grounds that a
   Justice could not be expected to be impartial in an appeal if he had
   previously decided the same case while riding circuit. Circuit riding
   was abolished in 1891. Now, the duty of a Supreme Court Justice in this
   regard is generally limited to hearing emergency petitions in the
   relevant circuit and to some other routine tasks like addressing
   certain requests for extensions of time. The Justice assigned to a
   given circuit is known within that circuit as "the Circuit Justice" and
   may, but in practice almost never does, sit as a judge of that circuit.
   A Circuit Justice takes precedence over the Chief Judge of the circuit
   when a Justice decides to sit.

   The Chief Justice is usually assigned to the District of Columbia
   Circuit, the Federal Circuit and the Fourth Circuit (which surrounds
   the District of Columbia); each Associate Justice is assigned to one or
   two judicial circuits.

   After Associate Justice Alito's appointment, circuits were assigned as
   follows:
     * For the D.C. Circuit, John G. Roberts, Jr.
     * For the First Circuit, David H. Souter
     * For the Second Circuit, Ruth Bader Ginsburg
     * For the Third Circuit, David H. Souter
     * For the Fourth Circuit, John G. Roberts, Jr.
     * For the Fifth Circuit, Antonin G. Scalia
     * For the Sixth Circuit, John Paul Stevens
     * For the Seventh Circuit, John Paul Stevens
     * For the Eighth Circuit, Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
     * For the Ninth Circuit, Anthony M. Kennedy
     * For the Tenth Circuit, Stephen G. Breyer
     * For the Eleventh Circuit, Clarence Thomas
     * For the Federal Circuit, John G. Roberts, Jr.

   The Circuit assignments frequently reflect, but do not always and need
   not, the geographic regions where the assigned Justices served as
   judges or Members of the Bar before joining the Supreme Court. Four of
   the current Justices are assigned to circuits on which they once sat as
   circuit judges: Chief Justice Roberts (D.C. Circuit), Justice Souter
   (First Circuit), Justice Stevens (Seventh Circuit), and Justice Kennedy
   (Ninth Circuit). Furthermore, Justices Thomas and Ginsburg are assigned
   to the circuits that include their home states (the Eleventh and Second
   Circuits, respectively).

Current membership

   The current Justices of the United States Supreme Court are:
   Seat # Title Name Date of birth Appt. by Conf. vote Active Service
   Senior Service
   CJ Chief Justice John G. Roberts 1955 G. W. Bush 78-22 2005-present
   (none)
   3 Associate Justice John Paul Stevens 1920 Ford 98-0 1975-present
   (none)
   9 Associate Justice Antonin G. Scalia 1936 Reagan 98-0 1986-present
   (none)
   4 Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy 1936 Reagan 97-0 1988-present
   (none)
   1 Associate Justice David H. Souter 1939 G. H. W. Bush 90-9
   1990-present (none)
   10 Associate Justice Clarence Thomas 1948 G. H. W. Bush 52-48
   1991-present (none)
   6 Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 1933 Clinton 97-3 1993-present
   (none)
   2 Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer 1938 Clinton 87-9 1994-present
   (none)
   8 Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito 1950 G. W. Bush 58-42 2006-present
   (none)
   retired Retired Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor 1930 Reagan 99-0
   1981-2006 2006-present

   As of 2006, the average age is 66 years.

Retired justices

   Research suggests that justices are often strategic in their decisions
   to leave the bench with personal, institutional, and partisan factors
   playing a role. The fear of mental decline and death often precludes
   justices from stepping down. The desire to maximize the Court's
   strength and legitimacy through one retirement at a time, when the
   Court is in recess, and during non-presidential election years suggests
   a concern for institutional health. Finally, if at all possible,
   justices seek to depart under favorable presidents and senates to
   ensure that a like-minded successor will be appointed.

   Currently, there is only one living retired Justice of the Supreme
   Court, Sandra Day O'Connor, who announced her intent to retire in 2005
   and was replaced by Samuel Alito in 2006.

Seniority and seating

   During Court sessions, the Justices sit according to seniority, with
   the Chief Justice in the centre, and the Associate Justices on
   alternating sides, with the most senior Associate Justice on the Chief
   Justice's immediate right, and the most junior Associate Justice seated
   on the left farthest away from the Chief Justice. Therefore, the
   current court sits as follows from left to right when looking at the
   bench from the perspective of a lawyer arguing before the Court:
   Breyer, Thomas, Kennedy, Stevens (most senior Associate Justice),
   Roberts (Chief Justice), Scalia, Souter, Ginsburg and Alito (most
   junior Associate Justice).

Political leanings

   Seven of the current justices of the court were appointed by Republican
   Presidents, while two were nominated by a Democratic President. In
   legal circles, it is popularly accepted that Chief Justice Roberts and
   Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito compose the Court's conservative
   wing, while Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer compose the
   Court's liberal wing. Justice Kennedy, a moderate conservative, is
   considered to be the justice most likely to become the swing vote that
   determines the outcome of close cases.

Quarters

   U.S. Supreme Court building
   Enlarge
   U.S. Supreme Court building

   The Supreme Court occupied various spaces in the United States Capitol
   until 1935, when it moved into its own purpose-built home at One First
   Street Northeast, Washington, D.C. The four-story building was designed
   in a classical style sympathetic to the surrounding buildings of the
   Capitol complex and Library of Congress by architect Cass Gilbert, and
   is clad in marble quarried chiefly in Vermont. The building includes
   space for the Courtroom, Justices' chambers, an extensive law library,
   various meeting spaces, and auxiliary services such as workshop,
   stores, cafeteria and a gymnasium. The Supreme Court building is within
   the ambit of the Architect of the Capitol, but maintains its own police
   force, separate from the Capitol Police.

Jurisdiction

   Article Three of the United States Constitution outlines the
   jurisdiction of the federal courts of the United States:

     The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,
     arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and
     Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all
     Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to
     all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies
     to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies
     between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another
     State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the
     same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and
     between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States,
     Citizens or Subjects.

   The jurisdiction of the federal courts was further limited by the
   Eleventh Amendment, which forbade the federal courts from hearing cases
   "commenced or prosecuted against [a State] by Citizens of another
   State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State". However, the
   Eleventh Amendment is not deemed to apply if a state consents to be
   sued (see Sovereign immunity). Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled
   that Congress may abrogate the states' immunity from lawsuits in
   certain circumstances. In addition to constitutional constraints, the
   jurisdiction of the federal courts is also limited by various federal
   laws. For example, the federal courts may consider "Controversies ...
   between Citizens of different States" only if the amount in controversy
   exceeds $75,000; otherwise, the case may only be brought in state
   courts.

   The Constitution specifies that the Supreme Court may exercise original
   jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors and other diplomats, and in
   cases in which a state is a party. In all other cases, however, the
   Supreme Court has only appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court
   considers cases based on its original jurisdiction very rarely; almost
   all cases are brought to the Supreme Court under the appellate
   jurisdiction after having been considered by lower courts. In practice,
   the only original jurisdiction cases heard by the Court are disputes
   between two or more states, or occasionally between the federal
   government and a state.

   The power of the Supreme Court to consider appeals from state courts,
   rather than just federal courts, was recognized by the Judiciary Act of
   1789 and upheld early in the Court's history, by its rulings in Martin
   v. Hunter's Lessee (1816) and Cohens v. Virginia (1821). The Supreme
   Court is the only federal court that has jurisdiction over direct
   appeals from state court decisions, although there are a variety of
   devices that permit so-called "collateral review" of state-court cases.

   The Supreme Court may only hear actual cases and controversies. It does
   not hear moot cases or issue advisory opinions. However, the Court may
   consider some cases, such as Roe v. Wade, that become moot during the
   judicial process, if it appears that the legal issue involved is likely
   to arise again but would not be reviewable by the Court under a strict
   mootness analysis. "Roe" had already had her baby when the case came to
   the Supreme Court, because judicial activity (trials, appeals and so
   on) takes much longer than human gestation. Because future abortion
   cases would face the same time constraints, the Court decided the case
   in spite of its mootness.

   The Supreme Court is not required to hear every case presented to it.
   In cases that are heard by a three-judge United States district court
   (a practice that formerly was somewhat common but has been limited to
   very few cases by legislation in recent years), there is a right of
   appeal directly to the Supreme Court, although the Court may dispose of
   these appeals by summary order if it does not believe they are
   important enough for full briefing and argument. In most instances,
   however, the party must petition the Supreme Court for a writ of
   certiorari. By custom, certiorari is granted on the vote of four of the
   nine Justices. In most cases, the writ is denied; the Supreme Court
   normally only considers matters of national or constitutional
   importance. If the Court refuses to grant certiorari, it does not
   comment on the merits of the case; the decision of the lower court
   stands unchanged as if Supreme Court review had not been requested.

Court reports and citation style

   Supreme Court decisions are typically cited as in the following
   example: " Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)." The citation consists of
   the names of the opposing parties; the volume number; "U.S."
   (signifying United States Reports, the official reporter of Supreme
   Court decisions); the page number on which the decision begins; and the
   year in which the case was decided. The names of the opposing parties
   are listed in the format "Petitioner v. Respondent" or "Appellant v.
   Appellee." The Reporter of Decisions is responsible for publication of
   the Court's rulings. There are two other widely-used reporters: the
   Supreme Court Reporter and the Lawyer's Edition, corresponding to two
   privately-published collections of decisions. For more information on
   how these reports are cited, see case citation.

Checks and balances

   The Constitution does not explicitly grant the Supreme Court the power
   of Judicial review; nevertheless, the power of the Supreme Court to
   overturn laws and executive actions it deems unlawful or
   unconstitutional is a well-established precedent. Many of the Founding
   Fathers accepted the notion of judicial review; in Federalist No. 78,
   Alexander Hamilton writes: "A constitution is, in fact, and must be
   regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to
   them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular
   act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be
   an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior
   obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other
   words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute." The
   Supreme Court first established its power to declare laws
   unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison (1803), consummating the system
   of checks and balances.

   The Supreme Court cannot directly enforce its rulings; instead, it
   relies on respect for the Constitution and for the law for adherence to
   its judgments. One notable instance of nonacquiescence came in 1832,
   when the state of Georgia ignored the Supreme Court's decision in
   Worcester v. Georgia. President Andrew Jackson, who sided with the
   Georgia courts, is supposed to have remarked, "John Marshall has made
   his decision; now let him enforce it!" However, this quotation is
   likely apocryphal. State militia in the South also resisted the
   desegregation of public schools after the 1954 judgment Brown v. Board
   of Education. More recently, many feared that President Richard Nixon
   would refuse to comply with the Court's order in United States v. Nixon
   (1974) to surrender the Watergate tapes. Nixon, however, ultimately
   complied with the Supreme Court's ruling. The Court must rely on the
   willingness of the other branches of government, the lower courts, and
   ultimately the American people, to uphold its rulings, and therefore
   has a strong institutional interest in issuing well-reasoned,
   persuasive opinions. If a ruling is not sound it will likely be
   overturned by the Court later or changed by the Congress through the
   amendment process, as occurred most notably with Dred Scott v. Sanford,
   which is widely believed by historians to have contributed to the Civil
   War and subsequently was overturned by the 14th Amendment.

   The Constitution provides that the salary of a Justice may not be
   diminished during his or her continuance in office. This clause was
   intended to prevent Congress from punishing Justices for their
   decisions by reducing their emoluments. Together with the provision
   that Justices hold office for life, this clause helps guarantee
   judicial independence. However, as seen above, the President's practice
   of appointing justices with similar real, perceived or expected
   ideology can be seen to compromise judicial independence. This is
   compounded by the fact that chance determines how many opportunities
   each president has to make appointments. To ameliorate this problem,
   some advocate a plan that would reduce the term of office from lifetime
   to 18 years. This is a nonpartisan reform that would allow every
   president to appoint 2 justices per 4-year term. As with the other
   historical changes in the court's makeup, they argue it would not
   require a constitutional amendment (because at the end of the 18-year
   term justices would become non-voting "senior justices" and would
   continue to hold office and receive a salary as required by Article
   III).

Quotes about arguing before the Supreme Court


   Supreme Court of the United States

       I had never before argued a Supreme Court case on my own. Since
     arguments in that Court are thirty minutes in length per side, and
   since most of the time consumed in argument is taken up with responses
    to questions of the Court, Dean and I devoted most of our preparation
    to three overlapping issues, ones that have consumed my attention in
          every later Supreme Court argument as well. The first was
   jurisprudential in nature. What rule of law were we urging the Court to
   adopt? How would it apply in any future case? What would be its impact
    on First Amendment legal doctrine?" Floyd Abrams, discussing Landmark
                         Communications v. Virginia.


   Supreme Court of the United States

   Retrieved from "
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States"
   This reference article is mainly selected from the English Wikipedia
   with only minor checks and changes (see www.wikipedia.org for details
   of authors and sources) and is available under the GNU Free
   Documentation License. See also our Disclaimer.
