LAW AND COURTS EXAM August 2001

Directions: Answer one question in Part I and one Question in Part II.

Part I
1. In a recent op-ed piece, a Washington Post writer argued that senators should not pay much attention to ideology when considering nominees to lower federal courts. He wrote that although the justices' personal views are an important factor in Supreme Court decisions, personal views play a very limited role m the decisions of courts of appeals and district courts. Evaluate the different aspects of his empirical claim is light of research evidence and logic.

2. You have been hired as a consultant for an interest group that is thinking about pursuing its policy goals through the courts. In your report to the group. describe the various ways in which groups can attempt to affect what happens in courts and summarize what judicial scholars have learned about the effectiveness of the various tactics.

3. Two of the most influential books of the last several years are Segal and Spaeth's The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model and Epstein and Knight's The Choices Justices Make. Carefully describe the issues on which these books are in agreement and those on which they disagree. In view of the evidence in these books and in other works, who do you think has the better argument? Defend your position.

Part II
I. Briefly explain and then critically assess the developing standards in constitutional law and politics with respect to two of the following areas: u. The Tenth and Eleventh Amendments b. privacy and substantive due process c. the (dis)establishment of religion and the state d. minority-majority redistricting

2. In The Gemifs oJJudieiaf Power, William Lasser challenges conventional arguments that the Supreme Court endangers its political effectiveness and institutional prestige when it engages in activist policymaking. By contrast, in The Hnflo»Hope. Gerald Rosenberg argues that the Supreme Court with such controversial rulings as those in Brown v Board of Education and Roe v. Wade. Please explain and evaluate their arguments and supporting evidence. as well as offer your assessment of the legitimacy and institutional capacity of the Supreme Court to bring about social change.

3. Harvard Law School Professor Paul Freund once observed that, "The Constitution should not be interpreted as a last will and testament lest it become one." What do you think he meant by that statement and how do you think the Constitution should be interpreted? In developing your answer, consider two or three rival theories of
constitutional interpretation and their relative strengths and weaknesses. as illustrated by rulings of the Supreme Court and in illustrative literature.