Structure of the Federal Court System

Core Court Structure

Party and Presidential Court Appointments

Appointing President

ClintonBush IReaganCarterFordNixon

% o

f D

istr

ict C

ourt

fro

m P

resi

dent's

Part

y100

80

60

40

20

0

89899291

79

93

Impact of Justices’ Beliefs

Partisanship and Court Appointments

Bush Declares Judiciary 'Crisis' Only Half of 100 Court Candidates Confirmed, President Complains By Amy Goldstein Washington Post Staff Writer President Bush sought this morning to intensify political pressure on the Democratic-controlled Senate to accept the people he wants as federal judges, accusing senators of "endangering the administration of justice in America." Bush said the Senate, which has the power to confirm all federal judicial nominations, has aggravated a "vacancy crisis" on the federal bench by moving too slowly to convene hearings and votes on the 100 people he has selected for judgeships. "The Senate can do much more, and must do much more to address the current vacancy crisis," Bush said. "Justice is at risk in America, and the Senate must act for the good of the country."… Today, Bush said that one in 10 federal judgeships is vacant, and that one-sixth of the slots on the nation's regional appeals courts are unfilled. The administration's frustration essentially is a mirror image of the complaints that President Bill Clinton voiced with the Senate while the chamber was led by the GOP during the last six years of his presidency. The Democratic White House and its sympathizers accused Senate Republicans of refusing to consider many of Clinton's judicial candidates, thus leaving empty spots on the federal bench. Today, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) invoked that earlier argument in responding to Bush. "The surge in vacancies created on the Republicans' watch is being cleaned up under Democratic leadership in the Senate," Leahy said. "In just ten months since the Senate change over we have confirmed 52 judges and have set a far better pace than Republicans set for considering President Clinton's nominees."

© The Washington Post Company

Marbury v. Madison:

The Players

The Election of 1800

Adams, Federalist incumbent Jefferson, Democratic challenger

Result: Federalists lose the presidency and lose their majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. --The Federalists are wiped out.

•What is the Federalists’ last resort?

Marbury v. Madison

After the election. . .

Adams, outgoing president Jefferson, president-elect

Judicial Branch

Marshall, Federalist Sec. of State

Marbury, Federalist Judicial Official

Marshall, New Chief Justice ofthe Supreme Court

Marshall, Unofficial “presidential helper”

…but BEFORE Jefferson and the Democrats take control (November, 1800 to March, 1801).

Marbury v. Madison

Jefferson is sworn in. . .

Adams, outgoing president Jefferson, President

Judicial Branch

Madison, Democratic Sec. of State

Marbury, Federalist Judicial Official

Marshall, New Chief Justice ofthe Supreme Court

Marshall, Unofficial “presidential helper”

“We’re outta here. . .”

Where’s my bloody appointment??

Oops.

Secretary of State is to deliver commissions

Sorry, your commission has been

cancelled. . .

Marbury v. Madison

Jefferson is sworn in. . .

Jefferson, President

Judicial Branch

Madison, Democratic Sec. of State

Marbury, Federalist Judicial Official

Marshall, New Chief Justice ofthe Supreme Court

Marbury sues Madison, asking the Supreme Court to issue a “writ of mandamus.” Congress had given the Court the authority to issue these writs under the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Help me, Marshall old

buddy!

Uhhh. . .

If you help your Federalist crony, you’ll be sorry.

Marshall’s options

• Rule on the behalf of Marbury: order Madison to deliver the appointment.

RESULT: Madison would ignore the order, and the Court would be forever weakened

• Rule on the behalf of Madison: deny Marbury the appointment, even in the face of the Judiciary Act of 1789

RESULT: The Court would obviously be “knuckling under” to the the Executive Branch—forever weakening the Court.

Marshall’s Decision

• Although Marbury is right on the merits of the case (under the law, he does have a right to the appointment), the Court cannot rule on the case because the Judiciary Act of 1789 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.– Congress could not pass a law that gave the Supreme Court MORE

POWER (like issuing “writs of mandamus”) than the Constitution gives the Court. Therefore, the Judiciary Act of 1789 is not valid.

• Marbury v. Madison gave the Court the power of judicial review.

• The Court claimed this power for itself—it is not granted anywhere in the Constitution. Return

State and Federal Laws Struck Down by the Court: 1790 - 2000 Return

0

50

100

150

200

250

1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Decades

# o

f L

aw

s

Federal

State

Granting the Courts Powers. . .

• Article. III, Section. 1.

“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.”

Return

Federal Circuit CourtsReturn

The Court Assisting “the Trustbuster”

Return

FDR and “Packing the Court”

Return

Cases that can go directly to the Supreme Court

Article III, Section 2, Clause 2: 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.

Return

State Courts the Federal Court System*

Clarence Gideon’s hand-writtenpetition for a writ of certiorari

Return