LINKS
CONSTITUTION
https://quizlet.com/gb/923508982/us-politics-constitution-topic-1-flash-
cards/?i=29pvxi&x=1jqt
CONGRESS
https://quizlet.com/gb/808528928/us-politics-congress-flash-cards/?i=29pvxi&x=1jqt
PRESIDENCY
https://quizlet.com/gb/807878455/us-politics-presidency-flash-cards/?i=29pvxi&x=1jqt
US SUPREME COURT
https://quizlet.com/gb/886354955/us-politics-supreme-court-flash-cards/
https://quizlet.com/gb/899630131/us-supreme-court-cases-flash-
cards/?i=29pvxi&x=1jqt
DEMOCRACY AND PARTICIPATION
https://quizlet.com/gb/922788584/us-politics-democracy-and-participation-topic-5-
flash-cards/?i=29pvxi&x=1qqt
https://quizlet.com/gb/883381789/us-parties-policy-flash-cards/?i=29pvxi&x=1jqt
COMPARATIVE
https://quizlet.com/gb/909770214/comparative-politics-policy-republicans-and-
conservatives-flash-cards/?i=29pvxi&x=1jqt
https://quizlet.com/gb/909778781/comparative-politics-policy-democrats-and-labour-
flash-cards/?i=29pvxi&x=1jqt
https://quizlet.com/gb/808245689/politics-us-and-uk-comparative-questions-flash-
cards/?i=29pvxi&x=1jqt
US politics essay plans
SUPREME COURT
ETVT SCOTUS is too powerful
LoA: yes, too powerful
- Unreviewable power
- Power of judical review
- Inappropriate branch to have this power
,Para 1 : Not too powerful as judges have been seen to show restraint due to contains of
constitution
- e.g. when granting writ of cert, won’t take cases of can’t establish “mootness” (non
justicable cases), “standing” (showing plaintiff has suffered something unjust), or
“ripeness”
o From cases and controversies clause of article 3 constitution showing where they
believe power to grant cert justified
o Court has to behave within its own conventions
However, their power of judicial review in which they can declare acts of other branches
unconstitutional, was not specifically granted to them in contitution
- gave it to themselves in Marbury v Madison (1803) - so too powerful as not intended to
have this level of power
- Had huge ramifications e.g. Clinton v. City of NYC blocked Line by Veto Act (1996), which
ruled that president being able to veto specific lines of bills unconstitutional, Dobbs V
Jackson, said that right to abortion can’t be justified under the right to privacy
Para 2: not too powerful as play important role in rights protection, benefitting population
- e.g. DC v Heller (2008) protected 2nd ammendment right to bear arms
o Makes sure peoples rights aren’t infringed on by federal gov
- McDonald v Chicago (2010)
o further ruled that Chicago’s gun laws were a violation of the 2nd amendment
rights.
- Alabama state legislature v Alabama (2015)
o the SC ruled that Alabama’s district map was unconstitutional as it used racial
gerrymandering to dilute the vote of black voters.
- Snyder v Phelps – protect free speech
However, inappropriate branch to have this power
- Unelected = weak mandate
- Recent nominations been extremely politicised e.g. ACB 52/48 split in senate for voting
her in, no democrats voted for her, for a non-political branch it has become too
politicised
o Even seen with their cases e.g. 2000 Bush v Gore effectively decided next pres of
united states, example of judicial overreach for an unelected branch also
unrepresentative of rest of country
o Overturning of Roe V Wade as well.
,Para 3: Congress still able to pass legislation in response to SCOTUS rulings so not too
powerful as can rectify rulings
- e.g. SC ruled on ledbetter v goodyear tire company (2007) that Ledbetter had lost he
right to sue for discrimination as it had been over 180 days since the incident, so Obama
passed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (2009) to bolster worker protections against pay
discrimination
However, whilst in some circumstances this may work, ultimately it is still an unreviewable
power and trying to pass legislation to alter future decisions extremely difficult
- Most common way is amendment has to be proposed by 2/3 both houses and ratified
by ¾ states
o V hard to do e.g. ERA proposed 1923 is still not ratified (constitutionalise equal
rights of sexes) and only been 27 amendments over 235 years shows v rare
ETVT SCOTUS is too politicised/ judicial vs political
LoA: yes, too political (political rather than judicial) - had extreme political ramifications
- Voting in line with ideological views of president that appointed them
- Landmark rulings on cases that have significantly altered the US’s political landscape
- Politicised appointments process
Para 1: not a constant that judges vote in line w/ president that elected them ideological view
- NFIB v Sebelius (2012), John Roberts (appointed by Bush) sided with the liberal judges of
the SC and voted to uphold parts of Obama’s ACA
o Not politicised as despite JR being appointed by republican, he voted to uphold
democrat’s flagship policy – voting for what constitution permits
However, these cases few and far between, overwhelmingly vote in line w/ president that
appointed them
- e.g. 5-4 Split in Shelby County v holder (2013) repealing sections of VRA, Citizens Utd v
FEC (2010) relaxing campaign finance laws, Trump v Hawaii (2018) upheld Trump’s
Muslim travel ban
- DC v Heller (2008) 5-4 split in ruling upholding 2nd amendment
- Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores (2014) 5-4 split in which HLS able to refuse sell certain
contraceptives due to their right to religious freedoms
, o Thus, too politicised as trends of liberal judges voting in line w/ presidents that
elected them and vice versa with conservative
Para 2: can be seen to show restraint on political issues
- Rucho v common cause (2019) voted to keep Maryland and North Carolina’s districts in
place despite possible gerrymandering. Reasoning was that it was an issue for congress
to legislate against, not for the court
o Thus, distancing themselves from a highly politicised issue
However, court has been seen to make landmark rulings on cases that have significantly altered
the US’s political landscape
- 2000, Bush v Gore, voted to stop Florida vote count, effectively deciding election with
Bush as winner. Was seen as a federal issue as had already been decided at state level –
court injecting themselves into politics where not necessary
- McCutcheon v FEC (2014)
o lifted cap on how much any indiv can spend in total on a political movement. (Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act 2002 had limited this)
- Obergefell v Hodges (2015), same sex marriage, using political power to decide on highly
politicised issues
- US v Texas (2016)
o upheld lower court decision that Obama's DAPA EO (which would have let 5m
unathorised immigrant parents of lawful resident to delay deportation indefinitely), was
unconstitutional.
Para 3: past nominations demonstrate cross-party support for SC nominations
- John Roberts, current chief justice, received 78-22 in senate, (2005) showing cross party
support = not politicised
However, in more recent years, become increasingly partisan and politicised
- ACB, 2020, 52-48, no democrats, shows how democrats don’t believe she will act in a
non-partisan judicial way
- 2016, 11 republicans on justices select committee blocked Obama’s nomination of
Merrick Garland to SC by refusing to approve him so a vote in the senate could go ahead
o Shows how desperate parties are to appoint their own justices to the court, so
they can swing opinion of judges
CONSTITUTION
https://quizlet.com/gb/923508982/us-politics-constitution-topic-1-flash-
cards/?i=29pvxi&x=1jqt
CONGRESS
https://quizlet.com/gb/808528928/us-politics-congress-flash-cards/?i=29pvxi&x=1jqt
PRESIDENCY
https://quizlet.com/gb/807878455/us-politics-presidency-flash-cards/?i=29pvxi&x=1jqt
US SUPREME COURT
https://quizlet.com/gb/886354955/us-politics-supreme-court-flash-cards/
https://quizlet.com/gb/899630131/us-supreme-court-cases-flash-
cards/?i=29pvxi&x=1jqt
DEMOCRACY AND PARTICIPATION
https://quizlet.com/gb/922788584/us-politics-democracy-and-participation-topic-5-
flash-cards/?i=29pvxi&x=1qqt
https://quizlet.com/gb/883381789/us-parties-policy-flash-cards/?i=29pvxi&x=1jqt
COMPARATIVE
https://quizlet.com/gb/909770214/comparative-politics-policy-republicans-and-
conservatives-flash-cards/?i=29pvxi&x=1jqt
https://quizlet.com/gb/909778781/comparative-politics-policy-democrats-and-labour-
flash-cards/?i=29pvxi&x=1jqt
https://quizlet.com/gb/808245689/politics-us-and-uk-comparative-questions-flash-
cards/?i=29pvxi&x=1jqt
US politics essay plans
SUPREME COURT
ETVT SCOTUS is too powerful
LoA: yes, too powerful
- Unreviewable power
- Power of judical review
- Inappropriate branch to have this power
,Para 1 : Not too powerful as judges have been seen to show restraint due to contains of
constitution
- e.g. when granting writ of cert, won’t take cases of can’t establish “mootness” (non
justicable cases), “standing” (showing plaintiff has suffered something unjust), or
“ripeness”
o From cases and controversies clause of article 3 constitution showing where they
believe power to grant cert justified
o Court has to behave within its own conventions
However, their power of judicial review in which they can declare acts of other branches
unconstitutional, was not specifically granted to them in contitution
- gave it to themselves in Marbury v Madison (1803) - so too powerful as not intended to
have this level of power
- Had huge ramifications e.g. Clinton v. City of NYC blocked Line by Veto Act (1996), which
ruled that president being able to veto specific lines of bills unconstitutional, Dobbs V
Jackson, said that right to abortion can’t be justified under the right to privacy
Para 2: not too powerful as play important role in rights protection, benefitting population
- e.g. DC v Heller (2008) protected 2nd ammendment right to bear arms
o Makes sure peoples rights aren’t infringed on by federal gov
- McDonald v Chicago (2010)
o further ruled that Chicago’s gun laws were a violation of the 2nd amendment
rights.
- Alabama state legislature v Alabama (2015)
o the SC ruled that Alabama’s district map was unconstitutional as it used racial
gerrymandering to dilute the vote of black voters.
- Snyder v Phelps – protect free speech
However, inappropriate branch to have this power
- Unelected = weak mandate
- Recent nominations been extremely politicised e.g. ACB 52/48 split in senate for voting
her in, no democrats voted for her, for a non-political branch it has become too
politicised
o Even seen with their cases e.g. 2000 Bush v Gore effectively decided next pres of
united states, example of judicial overreach for an unelected branch also
unrepresentative of rest of country
o Overturning of Roe V Wade as well.
,Para 3: Congress still able to pass legislation in response to SCOTUS rulings so not too
powerful as can rectify rulings
- e.g. SC ruled on ledbetter v goodyear tire company (2007) that Ledbetter had lost he
right to sue for discrimination as it had been over 180 days since the incident, so Obama
passed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (2009) to bolster worker protections against pay
discrimination
However, whilst in some circumstances this may work, ultimately it is still an unreviewable
power and trying to pass legislation to alter future decisions extremely difficult
- Most common way is amendment has to be proposed by 2/3 both houses and ratified
by ¾ states
o V hard to do e.g. ERA proposed 1923 is still not ratified (constitutionalise equal
rights of sexes) and only been 27 amendments over 235 years shows v rare
ETVT SCOTUS is too politicised/ judicial vs political
LoA: yes, too political (political rather than judicial) - had extreme political ramifications
- Voting in line with ideological views of president that appointed them
- Landmark rulings on cases that have significantly altered the US’s political landscape
- Politicised appointments process
Para 1: not a constant that judges vote in line w/ president that elected them ideological view
- NFIB v Sebelius (2012), John Roberts (appointed by Bush) sided with the liberal judges of
the SC and voted to uphold parts of Obama’s ACA
o Not politicised as despite JR being appointed by republican, he voted to uphold
democrat’s flagship policy – voting for what constitution permits
However, these cases few and far between, overwhelmingly vote in line w/ president that
appointed them
- e.g. 5-4 Split in Shelby County v holder (2013) repealing sections of VRA, Citizens Utd v
FEC (2010) relaxing campaign finance laws, Trump v Hawaii (2018) upheld Trump’s
Muslim travel ban
- DC v Heller (2008) 5-4 split in ruling upholding 2nd amendment
- Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores (2014) 5-4 split in which HLS able to refuse sell certain
contraceptives due to their right to religious freedoms
, o Thus, too politicised as trends of liberal judges voting in line w/ presidents that
elected them and vice versa with conservative
Para 2: can be seen to show restraint on political issues
- Rucho v common cause (2019) voted to keep Maryland and North Carolina’s districts in
place despite possible gerrymandering. Reasoning was that it was an issue for congress
to legislate against, not for the court
o Thus, distancing themselves from a highly politicised issue
However, court has been seen to make landmark rulings on cases that have significantly altered
the US’s political landscape
- 2000, Bush v Gore, voted to stop Florida vote count, effectively deciding election with
Bush as winner. Was seen as a federal issue as had already been decided at state level –
court injecting themselves into politics where not necessary
- McCutcheon v FEC (2014)
o lifted cap on how much any indiv can spend in total on a political movement. (Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act 2002 had limited this)
- Obergefell v Hodges (2015), same sex marriage, using political power to decide on highly
politicised issues
- US v Texas (2016)
o upheld lower court decision that Obama's DAPA EO (which would have let 5m
unathorised immigrant parents of lawful resident to delay deportation indefinitely), was
unconstitutional.
Para 3: past nominations demonstrate cross-party support for SC nominations
- John Roberts, current chief justice, received 78-22 in senate, (2005) showing cross party
support = not politicised
However, in more recent years, become increasingly partisan and politicised
- ACB, 2020, 52-48, no democrats, shows how democrats don’t believe she will act in a
non-partisan judicial way
- 2016, 11 republicans on justices select committee blocked Obama’s nomination of
Merrick Garland to SC by refusing to approve him so a vote in the senate could go ahead
o Shows how desperate parties are to appoint their own justices to the court, so
they can swing opinion of judges
