Judicial Decisions: Crash Course Government and Politics #22

Today, Craig Benzine is going to dive into the factors that influence judicial decisions. As you may have noticed, the Supreme Court recently handed down some pretty big decisions on same-sex marriage (in Obergefell v Hodges) and the Affordable Care Act (in King v. Burwell). Now, it's important to remember that these decisions are not made in a vacuum, but influenced by the other branches of government, political affiliations, and past court decisions. We’re also talk about a judge’s judicial philosophy - that is their relative restraint or activism in making decisions on laws. Judicial restraint is often equated with conservatism, but as we’ll show you, this is not always the case.

All attributed images are licensed under Creative Commons by Attribution 2.0

Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?

[thewannabegamer]

I swear, YouTube teaches me way more than actual school does.

[Smartaleckcomedy]

As someone who studied politics in college, I greatly appreciate the eagle punches. Also, everything else.

[aprilgibson]

Anyone else cramming for the AP gov exam?

[jackesposito]

Thanks Crash Course for making the Government and Politics series for teaching us about our nation's laws. I feel knowing these law I will become a better citizen for our great country.

[AvielMenter]

I'm going to have to strongly dispute the Thought Bubble segment on judicial activism and restraint.

First, it is difficult to come up with satisfactory definitions for the terms "activism" and "restraint" in this context; in fact, there's a good argument to be made that it might not be possible at all. The Thought Bubble segment didn't seem to appreciate this ambiguity. For example, what if the court's precedent clearly mandates striking down a law? If the court strikes down the law, is that activist because they overruled Congress or a state legislature, or is it restrained because they adhered closely to precedent? For an even more convoluted example, look at the debate between Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia in NFIB v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. ___ (2012). Roberts believed that he was acting in a more restrained fashion by construing the Affordable Care Act to be Constitutional, and striking down only those parts that he couldn't find any way to uphold. Scalia thought that Roberts was being activist, because through such a strained construction of the law, Roberts was effectively rewriting it.

Second, even to the degree that we can understand how "activism" is different from "restraint", its association with specifically liberal or specifically conservative justices is really non-existent. One can probably argue that the Warren court was an activist and a liberal court, but this hardly creates a general association between activism and liberalism. During the Lochner era, activism was strongly associated with conservatism, as the Supreme Court would aggressively use the due process clause to strike down economic regulation. Nowadays, the correlation continues to remain unclear; as was pointed out, conservatives are arguably activist for overturning Congressional legislation in Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), especially when they'd recently upheld that legislation in McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003). And liberal justices are arguably restrained for sticking to the precedent of the Warren court in cases like Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009), and Friedrichs v. California Teacher's Association ___ U.S. ___ (2016). Given the absence of correlation, it's not clear to me why a heuristic association was even suggested.

Third, it hardly makes historical sense to group the Burger and Warren courts together as alike in judicial philosophy. Though, especially during the early years of the Burger court, many of the liberal justices from the Warren court (like Brennan, Marshall, and Douglas) successfully upheld and extended some of the decisions of the Warren court, the Burger court very quickly started moving in the opposite direction. Decisions like Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976) and Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974), from early on in the Burger court, overturned or limited precedents from the Warren court, and that trend only continued as time went on.

I recognize that a video educating people on the way that federal courts make decisions is going to have to touch on concepts like judicial activism and judicial restraint, as many people will view the behaviour of courts through those lenses. But to ascribe those terms to specific decisions or justices, and to do so with such generality, misleads more than it educates.

[Crystalvampire]

Wait, not literally? (puts away bone saw)

[charlietribble]

Love that Jon Stewart was in the recommended videos when you show the screen shot.

[rosaliebarrette]

Every time Craig mentions the importance of Roe v. Wade, I grimace with my entire body. Very informative video, but also very depressing here in the pre-apocalyptic world of 2022.

[Wmom]

Fantastic! Marvelous! Carry on, Wheezy! Bravo!

[erielakej]

Intriguingly Informative :). I will now ACE all of my AP NSL tests!

[rithikatudmilla]

1:22 I love their interpretation of Trump

[icefly]

Just got my AP scores and am happy to say even with the series not even complete it allowed me to get a 5!

[truboo]

Why didn't this video come out on time last week CrashCourse

[qazhr]

Does anybody have any idea what going on with the free to download promise since I don't have there patron feed?

[davidkimlive]

Huh, I didn't know Hrrgrp won the 2016 election. 

Ah, Souter. Also, how funny when Earl Warren gave sweeping changes when they were appointed by Eisenhower.

[alexsinger]

I just got the script for this episode as one of the project for awesome perks. I loved rewatching it and following along with the script. Thank you!

[stellazarivy]

1:23 That's such an accurate picture of Trump, I can't believe Thought Bubble predicted our next president over a year before the elections

[davidsteventaylor]

Wow, I'm so surprised that these videos don't get more views.

[Cybrid]

Uncanny level of accuracy on what is on the sidebar when they show you the video in itself at 1:53.

[hankigoe]

Not sure how I feel about Justice Ginsberg blinking, but I think I like it