POLI 1100 Lecture Notes - Lecture 19: Robert Bork, Miranda Warning, Strict Constructionism
22 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
I. Nominating Justices
a. Who does the president choose?
i. Merit
ii. Favors
iii. Representation
b. Judicial ideology
i. Strict constructionism and judicial interpretivism
1. Strict: only constitutional when it is quite literally written in the
constitution
2. Judicial interpretivism: living document that can be interpreted and
updated for modern life.
c. Judicial review: key for how our legal system works. Where the Supreme Court derives
its power.
d. Robert Bork: when we have someone get confirmed by the Senate, it is often a tough
battle.
e. This is true for federal ones too.
II. Choosing cases
a. How courts work:
i. Plaintiffs:
ii. Defendants
iii. Appeals: asking another court to review a decision. Has to be based off of a
point of law that was incorrectly applied.
iv. Grand juries: meets to see if there is enough evidence to move a case forward.
v. Trial juries:
b. Types of law
i. Substantive v. procedural
1. Substantive: tell you what you can or cannot do.
2. Procedural: have to do with applying other laws. Miranda warning is an
example. About the process. Laws about evidence.
ii. Criminal v civil
1. Criminal: infractions against society. Against the government.
2. Civil: regulate interactions between individuals.
a. Violating a civil law: tort.
b. Punishment for violating civil law: money
3. Differences: different standards of evidence.
a. Beyond a reasonable doubt
b. By a preponderance of the evidence
iii. Constitutional law, statutory or administrative
1. Who made the law?
2. Constitutional: comes from court decisions.
3. Statutory: comes from legislatures. Whenever the state legislature
makes a law. Or Congress.
4. Administrative: comes from bureaucracy. Fills in a lot of the rules.
c. Levels of the federal court system and jurisdiction
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
