The ___ court theory posits that because of the judiciary's relative electoral freedom, it is uniquely free to take on issues that other political bodies cannot.
Congress has multiple methods to try to ___ the direction of the Supreme Court. (Identifying and discussing these methods, with examples would be a good essay question.)
The term “anticipatory ___” refers to lower federal court decisions that appear to anticipate the Supreme Court's future rulings on the basis of recent changes in its direction.
As Alexander Hamilton noted, the Court has neither the __ of the sword nor the purse. The Court’s ___, O'Brien points out, "stems from its duty to give authoritative meaning to the Constitution and rests with the persuasive forces of reason, institutional prestige, the cooperation of other political institutions, and ultimately, public opinion." (Discussion of various aspects of this concept, drawing from our discussions at the beginning of the semester through discussions at the end, would be a good essay question. Such discussion would include, among other things, the consequences when the Court moves "too far or too fast", and discussing current event ethics issues in the Court that we discussed in class and their impact on the Court's prestige and the public's confidence in the Court.)
According to O'Brien, public approval of the Court is becoming more ___, and there is a strong relationship between public support and whether the segment of society is being looked at agrees with the Court's recent high-profile rulings and perceived political ideology.
In Michigan v. Long (1983) the US Supreme Court ___ “new judicial federalism” by ruling that when state courts enforce rights broader than the US Supreme Court's definition of that right under the US Constitution, they must make a "plain statement" that the decision rests on "adequate and independent state grounds" (state constitutional provisions).
New judicial ___ is the adaptation of the traditionally conservative ideals of federalism and states' rights to a more liberal use, by interpreting state constitutions' bills of rights to give more or greater protection than the Supreme Court has interpreted as being available under the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. (Describing this trend, an example, and the Supreme Court's limitation placed on the trend would be a good essay question.)
The Supreme Court remains dependent on the attitudes and actions of their immediate constituents (government legal communities, and the legal profession in general) and elected officials' implementation, of their decisions, including the development of policies and programs putting into effect a new ruling. An example of this is the anticipated and initially reluctant, but now (almost) universal law enforcement procedure, of advising a criminal suspect of their rights after the Court's ___ decision.
According to political scientist Matthew E.K. ___, the Courts can bring about social change, or have a greater impact on American life, when a decision bears on more vertical issues (depending on lower courts' compliance rather than on other political institutions) and also has widespread public support.
Judges have more opportunity to make policy rather than just enforce existing ___ in cases presenting a new issue, where there are equally compelling law/facts on both sides and an answer is not clear cut, or where the legal evidence is contradictory.
The ___, incremental nature of the judicial decision-making process, with its emphasis on precedent, stability, and continuity, generally tempers the extent to which judges will engage in public policymaking that makes a drastic or abrupt change from the status quo.
O’Brien says that “a simple model of compliance” by lower courts with the Supreme Court’s decisions is not "___ because decisions bearing on major issues of public policy are not necessarily applied by lower courts." Taking advantage of any ambiguity in a Court decision, treating important language as dicta, emphasizing distinctions, and making "exceptions" to Court announced rules are all ways that lower courts maneuver to avoid or delay implementation of Court policies or decisions that do not align with their own policy preferences, political currents, and public pressures.