<p>for part 1 i said that they stay close to PO because a) they can be impeached b) they rely on the other branches and agencies to follow their directives, they can't really make things happen unless the other people agree somewhat</p>
<p>For number 1 I did</p>
<p>Maintain insulation from PO:
1) Lifelong terms
2) Illegal to lobby them (I know it's like this for all judges, but I really couldn't think of anything else) and forcing outside interested parties (like interest groups) to file amicus curiae briefs, which keeps everything within the proper realm of the Court.</p>
<p>Stay close to PO
1) Public Pressure (I talked about Schenk v. United States)
2) Appointment Process</p>
<p>Did anybody else have really short essays? I wrote to the rubric (we saw sample rubrics in school and seriously, they accept anything), answered the question straight out in like 2 paragraphs, and only had one answer go over a page...anybody else have this? I answered everything and supported, but didnt feel the need to write much at all for any of these.</p>
<p>i wrote 1 and a half pages for each question. i could've answered them in a little bit less though, probably like a page each but i thought it would be too short.</p>
<p>Ok, what the hell? I said the nomination process was why they are distant from public opinion. Unlike most other appointees, justices are known to be elected in the least democratic way.. straight from the president. And the public can't even impeach them, right? So.. does this not distance them from public opinion?</p>
<p>Knavish, I'm pretty sure that's what everybody else said.</p>
<p>Actually, slipstream said the exact opposite.</p>
<p>Heh, knavish I didn't see that. I didn't read this last post, my bad.</p>
<p>Slipstream...what's your logic?</p>
<p>well, the appointment process goes both ways - they have to be approved by Congress, so they can't be radical - look at how the senate is behaving right now</p>
<p>So i cited the life-long appointment as a reason why they were insulated, but also their approval process of why they aren't</p>
<p>Appointment process can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, since they're not directly elected, it doesn't require the voice of the people to, you know, elect them. OTOH, tick off a few Senators, and well, the I word looms into play.</p>
<p>Basically what thethoughtprocess said is why i put appointment process as a way to keep them in step with PO: first they are nominated by the President, who is accountable to the public and usually selects a justice with a similar ideology, and then they have to be affirmed by the full Senate, which is also full of men and women accountable and elected by the public, who must approve the nominees by a majority vote (or a 3/5ths vote if there's a filibuster, a la what's happening now, just not with Supreme Court justices). So, bascially I said that even though the justices aren't directly elected, they still must go through power centers that are accountable to the public for their nominations/confirmations. Also, when the President nominates a justice, he picks someone who is going to be fairly representative of his own values, which further ensures the justice isn't too far to the left or right. It's sort of like how the Senators were elected before the 17th amendment - they had to stay in line with PO even though they weren't directly elected.</p>
<p>PS - do you think they'll take my lobbying point for maintaining insulation?</p>
<p>For that question,</p>
<p>I did:
-Life term (they don't have to please constituents or get re-elected)
-Illegal to try and influence or lobby Supreme Court</p>
<p>and for the next part</p>
<p>-Amicus curaie briefs (kind of like "legal lobbying")
-I'm not sure, but I think I said something along the lines of the President could just not enforce the decision, or the public would simply ignore it if it was too far away from public opinion--but I can't remember :P</p>
<p>yeah, I think I was about to talk about Jackson who trowned John Marshall with the Cherokee v Georgia ruling</p>
<p>but I didn't</p>
<p>For some reason, Jackson didn't come immediately to mind. Maybe I forgot it all during AP US. :P</p>
<p>For the first question, I used Brown v. Board of Education's "all deliberate speed".. that they acknowledged the public's dislike of ending segregation.</p>
<p>What did you guys put for questions #2 and #4?</p>
<h1>2, wrote about elastic clause, used example of jefferson and louisana purchase. taxation/money, used grants and mandates (highway/alcohol example). used civil rights act, explained it, and said that it had the force of the law, and that federal govt can intervene.</h1>
<h1>4, wrote about banning of soft money and limitations.</h1>
<p>pro : stops corruption, lets new blood in office, money = not main factor, talked about clean elections, FECA
con: limitation of first amendment rights (buckley v valeo)
pretty much same for both subjects</p>
<p>i don't know if this has been posted, but my teacher graded ap essays and he said that sometimes bullet points are the best way to go.</p>
<p>I completely blanked out on the essays and started writing random stuff; turned out half of it was right though. But I heard people say that you couldn't use Miranda v. Arizona for that essay ques. since it was pre-trial. Oops... oh well...</p>
<p>toomuch2say87: you should only use bullets if you're running out of time and you're on the last essay. :)</p>