Changes

One of the most important presidential powers is the appointment of a new Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, when there is a vacancy.  The U.S. Constitution provides that such appointment must be based on the "Advice and Consent" of the Senate, which means that "confirmation" by a majority vote of the Senate is required. U.S. Const. Art II, Sec. 2, Cl. 2 (The President "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, '''''Judges of the supreme Court''''' ....").

One of the most important presidential powers is the appointment of a new Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, when there is a vacancy.  The U.S. Constitution provides that such appointment must be based on the "Advice and Consent" of the Senate, which means that "confirmation" by a majority vote of the Senate is required. U.S. Const. Art II, Sec. 2, Cl. 2 (The President "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, '''''Judges of the supreme Court''''' ....").

The U.S. Supreme Court decides whether to grant petitions for certiorari ("cert"), which means that it will hear the case, based on the "Rule of Four."  The Rule of Four is simply this: if 4 out of the 9 Supreme Court Justices vote to hear a case, then the petition for cert is granted and the Supreme Court schedules the case for a full argument by both sides and a decision on the merits of the case by the Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court decides whether to grant petitions for certiorari ("cert"), which means that it will then review and decide the merits of the case, based on the "Rule of Four."  The Rule of Four is simply this: if 4 out of the 9 Supreme Court Justices vote to hear a case, then the petition for cert is granted and the Supreme Court schedules the case for a full argument by both sides for a decision on the merits of the case by the Court.

This Supreme Court "grants cert" and hears about 75 cases each year, which is only about 1% of the cases brought before on petitions.  Nearly all the cases are on appeal from a U.S. Court of Appeals; a few are on appeal from state courts, such as a state Supreme Court.

The current Supreme Court "grants cert" and hears about 75 cases each year, which is only about 1% of the cases brought before on petitions.  Nearly all the cases are on appeal from a U.S. Court of Appeals; a few are on appeal from state courts, such as a state Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court uses two criteria in deciding whether to "grant cert" and hear the appeal:

The U.S. Supreme Court uses two criteria in deciding whether to "grant cert" and hear an appeal:

*is there a conflict between courts in different parts of the Nation that the Court needs to resolve?

*is there a conflict between courts in different parts of the Nation, which the Court should resolve?

*is the issue of immense national interest that the Court needs to decide?

*is the issue of immense national interest that the Court should decide?

The first reason -- a conflict between courts in different parts of the Nation -- is known as a "Circuit split."  Each U.S. Court of Appeals is a numbered Circuit, as discussed below, and when they disagree on an issue and render conflicting decisions, then the U.S. Supreme Court likes to accept one of the cases to establish what the rule of law will be for that issue.

The first reason -- a conflict between courts in different parts of the Nation -- is known as a "Circuit split."  Each U.S. Court of Appeals is a numbered Circuit, as discussed below, and when they disagree on an issue and render conflicting decisions, then the U.S. Supreme Court likes to accept one of the cases to establish what the rule of law will be for that issue nationwide.

For example, if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (which includes New Jersey) ruled that a search warrant is needed under the Fourth Amendment before police can search the trunk of someone's car, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (which includes New York) ruled that cops can search the trunk of someone's car without obtaining a search warrant, then the U.S. Supreme Court would "grant cert" on appeal from one of the two cases in order to establish a national, uniform rule concerning whether a search warrant is needed or not.

For example, if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (which includes New Jersey) ruled that a search warrant is needed under the Fourth Amendment before police can search the trunk of someone's car, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (which includes New York) ruled that cops can search the trunk of someone's car without obtaining a search warrant, then the U.S. Supreme Court would "grant cert" on appeal from one of the two cases in order to establish a national, uniform rule concerning whether a search warrant is needed or not.

One of the more interesting cases, in which your instructor was involved, was whether violent video games should receive protection as free speech under the First Amendment.  Even though there was no "Circuit split" on this issue, your instructor filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court urging it to consider the issue due to its national importance.  Millions of teenagers waste their lives playing hundreds of hours of video games each year, many of them extremely violent.   

One of the more interesting cases, in which your instructor was involved, was whether violent video games should receive protection as free speech under the First Amendment.  Even though there was no "Circuit split" on this issue, your instructor filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court urging it to consider the issue due to its national importance.  Millions of teenagers waste their lives playing hundreds of hours of video games each year, many of them extremely violent.   

The Court heard oral argument from the State of California, which had passed a law limiting the sale of violent video games to children, on Election Day 2010 (the timing was a coincident, but shows how the Court operates independent from elections).  It took the Court longer to decide this case than any other issue that "Term" (the Court term lasts from October through June of the following year, before adjourning for the summer).  Finally, on June 27, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision:  5 out of the 9 Justices, a slim majority,  

The Court heard oral argument from the State of California, which had passed a law limiting the sale of violent video games to children, on Election Day 2010 (the timing was a coincidence, and shows how the Court operates independent from elections).  It took the Court longer to decide this case than any other issue that "Term" (the Court term lasts from October through June of the following year, before adjourning for the summer).  Finally, on June 27, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision:  5 out of the 9 Justices, a slim majority,  

held that violent video games are protected as free speech under the First Amendment, even with respect to their sale to children, and no law can limit their sale or rentals to children.<ref>http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/eanf/ (The ruling was announced as being 7-2, but it was 5-4 on the issue of whether states can limit the sale of violent video games to children.</ref>  Do you agree?

held that violent video games are protected as free speech under the First Amendment, even with respect to their sale to children, and no law can limit their sale or rentals to children.<ref>http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/eanf/ (The ruling was announced as being 7-2, but it was 5-4 on the issue of whether states can limit the sale of violent video games to children.</ref>  Do you agree?