Polisci 230: Law in the Political Arena

01/07/2015

Week 7-8 Question

Litigants: includes individuals, organizations, and government officials.
One major study categorizes litigants into two categories: one-shotters,
those who use courts only occasionally, and repeat players, who engage in
many litigations over a period of time. Repeat players generally have the
upper hand because of greater experience and access to funds, also might
be more interested in maintaining precedent than one-shotters. Positive:
there is no court process without litigants; litigants create the need for trials
Negative: repeat players might have an unfair advantage over one-shotters
What are the 3 different types of lawyers?

1/15/2015
Exam 1 info
For the first midterm, more info coming from Vago than other
textbook
Usually short-answer based, where you have to list things and
provide examples
Just read the textbook
Law
Compliance
o Threats to compliance: cost-benefit analysis, moral
disagreements, a lack of political efficacy, assuming you wont
get caught, addiction, crimes of passion, thinking the law isnt
right/just/etc.
Coercion
o Think of the police as the wielder of coercion, also law
makers, judges, etc.
o Threats to coercion: if theres not enough money (police
departments funded locally), seeing the police discriminating,
you having weapons as well

Legitimacy
o Can have high level of compliance but sometimes it doesnt
work
o Frivolous cases
o Law being overly strict for no reason, not keeping up with the
times
o Corruption
o Discrimination: certain groups more marginalized than others,
know this from drug, sentencing laws The more this
happens, more potentially threat to legitimacy
Law and Society
Social control, law aspect of control
o Law as that which defines the bad, the criminal, the
undesirable elements of society
o Norms and deviance: Carson from Downtown Abbey
o Laws of criminality: lying isnt a crime unless youre lying
under oath Polygamy, incest
How does society affect law?
How does law affect society?
Law as social change
o Law as which defines the good, desirable elements of society
o Norms of appropriateness
o Behavior
o Laws of appropriateness
o Laws of sodomy
Alcohol Example!
Prohibition

o Wasnt just a stance on drinking is bad, thought prohibiting

alcohol could make people better, more productive, was a
racist way of thinking what people could accomplish, had to
do with nationalism (Germans made grain/parts of it, this
happened during WW1)
o Specific way of using societal discourse in regard to racial,
moral, and nationalistic issues
Drunk driving
o More successful
o 3 ways to think about deterrence. Want to deter people from
driving drunk
Communicate rules (this is what the punishment will be
if youre caught moral punishment + you could go to
jail)
Certain
Appropriate punishment
Need these 3 things in order for the deterrence theory
to work
Binge drinking
o Social norm marketing
o aT what CoST ??
o
1/21/2015
Midterm Prep
Vago chapters more important
Go to table of contents (5-7), be able to say a couple of statements
for each heading (white collar crime, etc.)
Dont need to know frivolous stuff
Having something to say about each sub section
Keep in mind some examples for main headings
Same with Carp book, be more concerned with Vago though

 Use examples from textbook

News reports and what not
Pick 4 from 7-8 questions
Give yourself 12 minutes per question
Make sure you define whatever the question is talking about

1/11/2015
Take a look at the Blackboard readings, specifically the glesar reading
BB readings most important that arent related to vago or carp.. news
articles specifically relating to judges
List focused, advantages vs. disadvantages
Will be easier. No lecture on Friday. Not a lecture on how to select
judges, WILL be on the midterm though.
Civil law
What the process looks like
How is it different from criminal law?
Dont need to know super specific stuff
Generally know the big things about the civil law process
Complaints/discovery/pre trial proceedings

o A lot of these things are settled before they get to trial

What happens prior to getting in the court room?
PRE TRIAL PROCEEDINGS
Sooo criminal vs. civil law
o Sentencing vs. ??
o Reasonable doubt stuff preponderance of evidence.. beyond
a reasonable doubt (Criminal law) definitely more strict
o More between individuals
o Criminal law defending against the state/public, civil law
against individuals or corporations, those individuals bring the
suit not the government
o Criminal law guaranteed right to counsel, not guaranteed in
civil proceedings, not a gurarnetee. Have a right for trial by
jury but not councel
o Must have standing in civil law (since youre bringing the suit
not the state) must have a personal stake in the controvery,
cant bring a suit on the behalf of someone else
Glaser
o Adversial model how we do proceedings vs. in france or
something, theyre called the inquisitorial model
o Strengths of these.. he focuses on civil litigation
o Advantages of adversial system
Each party is responsible for bringing out the facts in
the fullest way possible, goal is both do equal amounts
of hard work, then judge decides what happens
Think about the role of a judgeIn inquisitorial, judge is
asking a lot of questions, this way (adversial) you get
more neutrality because the judges arent as invested in
the case, at least supposed to. Not specific to civil
proceedings but ya
o Disadvanatges
Going up against more prepared/better lawyers cuz u
cant afford a good lawyer
Attorneys distorting facts, try to surprise and confuse
the other side/the jury
Really slow process
Lawyers might distort facts because of a financial
claim.. clients with the most money can afford the best
lawyers who are the best at distorting, etc.

o Reforms
Discoverynothing becomes a surprise.. evens the
playing field between those who have a lot of money
and can hire a fancy lawyer and those who dont
(specific to tort reform): lawyer compensation is a
percentage, so they might ask for HUGE damages, so
they limit percentage fee of what the lawyers can ask
judges.. change the way we select judges, make them
more independent, moving more towards merit based
selection or something

JUDGES
(Vago chapter 3 pg. 86 gives you a flow chart on American court
system, helps you visualize court system)
things that are surprising/interesting to learn about judges u might
not have learned
qualifications
o white males dominate
o better if you come from upper/middle class families
o age?
o Law experience
o Advantage for being an incumbent
State vs. federal
o Meritjust means that you take away the electoral aspect, at
least initially, got to get elected to stay a judge, usually stay
in. usually by governor
o Gubernatorial/legislative can be done by state legislator,
usually rewarding someone politically
o FEDERAL:
Federal District courts: lowest level of federal judge, has
to be appointed by the president, not elected or
anything. President very involved in supreme court, but
not very involved in the federal district court. So whos
involved if not the white house?
Usually turn to the senators of that state/s, if the
senator is from the presidents party, they get a
veto, if senator is NOT from the presidents party,
then the party leader/local politician/state bar
association steps in, if in presidents party they
have more influence.. attorney judge has a role in
vetting ppl , even white house legal counsel
(under Obama)

Appellate court
Differences from federal
Slightly more involved from the white house
At each level, level of elitism is increased
White men more represented
each/wealth/connections/education/experie
nce magnify as level increases
How this becomes a part of political patronage.. reward something
youve earned think about all the different stakeholds at the state vs.
federal level
Different way of becoming a judge
Role of different actors in getting someone to become a judge
Assets and liabilities that form//attribute
Sometimes judges have very low experience.
Read lecture outline on blackboard
Dont really need to know vago points on judges

VAGO: law as a profession

Key changes that have happened in law
What changes are coming?
Big law vs. solo practionier divide

Changes that have happened in the last century that may have
affected law
law firms more entrepreneurial, more focused on money (esp.
people at the top making the most), more businessy, going forward
gonna be increased competition in the future
pro bono work is down

more outsourcing of workwork being sent to paralegal

increasing might increase in the future because its cheaper
more women in the legal profession, going to continue to be more
women
nature of law.. corporations/corporate role.. change in the nature of
this and hwo it might change in the future technological law
responding to new challenges in the future
increasing number of law clinics, open to low income people, go in
for much lower fees, those things might increase in the future if
theres decline in pro bono work
difference between small practionier big law firm
o think about reasons for this split
o think about the role of the liabilities going into that field, is it
just about status/education? Or are more things at play..
when figuring out if you have a shot as a solo practionier
o whether or not were going to see increasing 3rd type of law
firm? But maybe not. Haha.
o

2/25/2014
The Supreme Court
5 landmark cases
Marbury vs. Madison
Federalist vs. anti-federalist
Did it create a specific check/enhance something?
Constitutional interpretation
On the one hand, marshall claims theyre trying to uphold C, so
rejecting Madison having to write things, in a way saying that the
SC given additional powers by this law
Sets up court for next couple hundred years

 Pretty particular to America authority of deciding constitutionality

Plessy vs. Ferguson
Separate but equal
Court only guarantees legal, not social equality
8 justices, was a 7-1 decision in favor of LA
few SC decisions had much larger wrong

Brown
Realizing that social/psychological and legal inequality need to both
be dealt with the law
Shift in perception regarding racism
Representative of at least the start of a general societal shift
towards less racially discriminatory laws
Psychological influence still relevant?
Can of worms: what happens when u force white + black
communities to integrate?
ROE VS WADE
Raises issues of morality, religion, etc.
Contentious
Case moot?
Citizens United janurary 2010
5-4 vote
implications huge
superceeding early understanding

3/11/2015
Q1: State court system has (trial courts of.) 4 levels; federal has 3 (district
courts, appeals, SC), different types of cases handled state sees way more
cases, federal has more discretion different states have different types of
courts 2 examples. California (neat and clean) vs. NY (has 13 courts at
varying levels all over the place).. role of expertise (comparison of NY
judges), in NY: federal judges required to have a law degree, state judges
arent. death penalty trialsacross the board for federal, not for the state
pick up the differences across chapters 2-3 know 4-5 differences/
similarities **important chapters** old judges stuff could reappear as well?
Q2: 2 claims that support high judicial discretion:
1. Fact that since judges can pick which cases they hear, they often
pick cases that deal with the legislative branch is a way to
maintain checks and balances, could rule against a law that might
be vague/unconstitutional. Ex: Marbury vs. madison so this
maintains the balance.
2. Have the right to hear cases that they think are important can
eliminate useless/frivolous cases, allows them to highlight the
important ones that will have wide impact
2 claims that support low judicial discretion:
1. SC is bound by constitution, everything has to be based on
constitutional review.
2. Whole country is aware of their political leanings might also
constrain how they decide the justices are partisans, so this is a
constraint. Partisanship
3. Precedent, tied on what theyve ruled on before
think about how SC is different from other courts know the landmark
cases (pick 1, how it matters for the court, know chapter 2 very well)
Q3: litigants, judges, lawyers, juries
Litigants: includes individuals, organizations, and government officials.
One major study categorizes litigants into two categories: one-shotters,
those who use courts only occasionally, and repeat players, who engage in
many litigations over a period of time. Repeat players generally have the
upper hand because of greater experience and access to funds, also might
be more interested in maintaining precedent than one-shotters. Positive:
there is no court process without litigants; litigants create the need for trials
Negative: repeat players might have an unfair advantage over one-shotters
Judges:

Lawyers:
Juries: name 2 ways in which jury selection might be improved
havent discussed them too in-depth in class. Focus more on juries than
other parts!
Q4:
Legislative
Deliberate creation of legal precepts by a body of government
Comprehensive
Can anticipate problems instead of being reactionary
Pro: wider scope than judiciary, more freedom to create laws, can
be anticipatory
Cons: powerful interest groups can make legislative 1 sided, some
legislators have no expertise/rely on what lobbyists tell them to
make their decisions, pressure to support interest groups
Administrative
Engage in law making through rule making.
IRS is an example
Pro: specialized, know what theyre doing as opposed to going
through congress. More expertise. Accountants in IRS vs.
congress
Con: might be pushing an agenda because theyre so specialized
FCC and net-neutrality is a good example of this. Beurocrats, want
to keep their jobs, might make rules that are more cumbersome so
their jobs are more secure
Judicial lawmaking
Mostly based on using precedent and statues, + constitutional
interpretations
Pro: Aimed at government agencies, can be a check/balance
Con:
**have an example for each type
Q5:
1. legal subculture: judges follow what exist, precedent, etc. rational
legal reasoning, precedent, and restraint
2. democratic subculture: have to do with the times, judges using
common sense, looking at current events? Ex: political party affiliation,
partisanship, location, local traditions eminent in the areas they work
outside stuff, nothing to do with legal reasoning partisanship, public
opinion, executive branch + congress interfering.
These bump heads because a judge cant just disregard a law, cant
throw away laws they dont believe in. Judges may want to enforce
something to do bias, they still have to strive to remain unbiased

Judge wants to vote a certain away but theres no precedent + good

legal reasoning, vice versa
Legal should have priority because its more objective
Which judges might be more likely to go with what culture?
What affects attitudes and whether or not we should want our
judges to go above whats written in the law
Only for trial courts judges, not appealte
Q6: chapter 13
Cue theory is what supreme court judges use to select cases there
are certain key words/concepts (whether the US govt is a party in the case,
dissension among judges who have already heard the case, if civil
rights/liberties are debated. good predicator. Changing timeschanging
values, more gay rights cases taking now than 100 years ago
Other theories contrasting: small group analysis might choose a
certain case because of groupthink/persuasion/bargaining.. social
psych
Attitude theory
Q7:
1.presidential support for ideological based appointments (how will this
judge fall in line with the presidents ideology)
2. number of vacancies in the term
3. judicial climate (whether if the judges are agreeing on a specific
issue)
1st is most important, especially for the SC.
Clout
Q8: second half of the chapter is more important (interest
groups)
1. .
Ch. 14
Guantonomo
Brown decision
Know judges
What is the prison crisis?
Crazy jump in American incarceration rate in general
Ridiculously rate at which Blacks are incarcerated specifically
Ridiculous amount of money were putting into the prison system