Dr. Daugherty, UH 218
Office hours: M-W, 12:00-1:20; T-R, 1200-12:50, or by appointment.
Tel: 961-3078 (warning: voice mail infrequently checked).
E-mail (preferred): wijid@comcast.net or daughewi@mail.armstrong.edu.

ACCEPTANCE: Students are responsible for the contents of this syllabus; continued enrollment in this course constitutes awareness and acceptance of all requirements and policies discussed therein.

OVERVIEW: This course is a focused study of the roles played by the federal courts and judges in the American legal system, including political jurisprudence, politics of judicial selection; judicial decision making and strategies, and judicial review in a democracy. It will introduce students to the role of the judiciary in public policy. The course adds to and complements our department's offerings of courses in criminal, constitutional, and administrative law by giving the student the "why" and "how" to complement the "what" that comes with the courses in substantive law.

TEXTS: Courts, Judges, and Politics (Murphy and Prichett); The Choices Justices Make (Epstein and Knight). The Judicial Process (Abraham) is highly recommended for reference purposes.

HONOR CODE: All sections of the AASU Student Honor Code and Code of Conduct will apply to this class. Under the Honor Code, plagiarism, cheating, facilitating academic dishonesty, and fabrication in any form or manner are forbidden. Additional restrictions or instructions given in class on any individual assignment, whether verbal or written, will also fall under the Honor Code. Absence from the class when any additional instructions are given is not a valid excuse if a violation of the instructions result in an Honor or Conduct Code violation. Students will also be required sign each examination, which acknowledges that the student has followed the Honor Code and any additional restrictions/instructions given in class. Continued enrollment in the class after receiving this syllabus constitutes acceptance of these provisions.

HONOR VIOLATION POLICY: I will accuse no student of violating the Honor Code unless I can prove beyond a doubt that the student is guilty. At that time, the student will be dropped from the course. His or her name will transmitted to the Dean of Student Affairs along with the proof, for a formal hearing before the Honor Court. Although the Honor Code permits a professor an option to handle the transgression in an "informal" manner vice submitting the case to the Honor Court, I will not do so. Before the Honor Court, I will urge that the student receive the maximum penalty possible, including an F for the semester grade, suspension from the university for one year, and a letter of reprimand included in the student's permanent file.

PREREQUISITES: The prerequisites are either POLS 2100 or HIST/POLS 1100. However, you will be better prepared if you have already had POLS 2100 or another course that has exposed you to the American judicial system. Any student who lacks that exposure should take the initiative early in the course either to read and absorb the chapter(s) on the Judiciary presented any basic American government text or to read relevant chapters in any book on the American Judicial Process.

REQUIREMENTS: There will be a significant amount of reading to facilitate learning, questions, and class discussion. IF YOU ARE NOT ABLE OR DO NOT INTEND TO READ THE MATERIAL, YOU WOULD BE BETTER OFF DROPPING THE CLASS BECAUSE YOUR CHANCES OF PASSING WILL BE VERY SLIM. LIKEWISE, IF YOU DO NOT INTEND TO PARTICIPATE IN CLASS, YOU SHOULD NOT TAKE THIS COURSE. Throughout the term we will be discussing issues involving the judiciary and judicial politics, as well as cases that are before the courts. To be informed in advance of these events, you should frequently review the United States Supreme Court website (www.supremecourtus.government), as well as the New York Times and Washington Post websites, both of which have special sections devoted to the Supreme Court and judicial matters.

PAPERS: You will be required to write three papers for this course, format guidance for which will be passed out separately. Failure to follow the format instructions will reduce your grade. The subjects of the papers are discussed at the end of this syllabus. Because you know the general subject matter of the papers and their due dates on the first day of class, you will have more than ample time for research and writing. Therefore, late papers will not be accepted and will receive a grade of 0 - late being defined as one minute past the date/time the paper is due. There will be no extensions and no exemptions.

GRADING: Your course grade will be determined by the aggregate scores on the three papers, with the first paper worth 75 points, the second worth 125 points, and the final paper worth 200 points, for a total of 400 possible points. A = 360-400 pts; B = 320-259; C = 280-319; D = 240-279.

CLASS PARTICIPATION: The minimal accepted level of class participation includes attending class, arriving at class on time (habitual lateness is disrespectful to classmates and professor alike), being prepared for class by reading the assigned material, staying awake, taking notes, and looking interested. It will be a serious mistake to leave the impression that you don't care about this class! Students who participate frequently by asking questions and engaging in debates and discussions, may have their grade elevated one full letter at my discretion and based on my judgment of the value of that participation.

ABSENCE POLICY: You are permitted four absences. On the fifth absence, you will be dropped from the course with a WF.

SYLLABUS:

PART ONE: INTRODUCTION

Lesson One: The Nature of the Judiciary and the Role of the courts
Political Jurisprudence (Murphy 3-7; 17-19)
Cardozo "Nature of Judicial Process" (Murphy 29-32)

PART TWO: JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING

Lesson Two: Judicial Decision Making Processes
Processes (Murphy 603-628)

Lesson Three: Strategic Decision Making
Strategic Account (Epstein Chapter One)
policy Seekers (Epstein Chapter Two)

Lesson Four: Strategic Interaction
Interaction (Epstein Chapter Three)

Lesson Five: Institutional Context
Context I & II (Epstein Chapter Four & Five)
PART THREE: JUDICIAL POWER

Lesson Six: Getting Your Day in Court
Access to the Courts (Murphy 239-275)
Vose "Litigation as Pressure" (Murphy 272-276)
Caldera/Wright "Organized…" (Murphy 276-279)

Lesson Seven: Instruments of Judicial Power
Judicial Powers (Murphy 280-290)
Four cases (Murphy 292-309)

Lesson Eight: Limits on Power
Checks on the Courts (Murphy 310-321)
Roosevelt "Reorganizing.." (Murphy 341-343)
Ex Parte McCardle (Murphy 345-348)

Lesson Nine: Precedents and Legal Reasoning
Precedents (Murphy 419-430)

Lesson Ten: Statutory Interpretation
Interpretation (Murphy 477-488)
Frankfurter "Reflections" (Murphy 489-493)

Lesson Eleven: Constitutional Interpretation
Interpreting the Constitution (Murphy 526-543)
United States v. Nixon (Murphy 547-553)
Scalia "Originalism" (Murphy 553-558)
United States v. Leon (Murphy 573-578)

Lesson Twelve: Appointing Federal Judges (reading to be assigned)

Paper ONE: You will select a justice who served on the Supreme Court any time between 1900 and 1950, and write a 3-4 page profile for that justice. This will include biographic information, how/why they were selected for the Court, their rating as a justice, judicial philosophy, political leanings, important cases for which they wrote either the majority opinion or a particularly striking dissents. If you are taking or have taken another class that requires a similar paper on a one or more justices, you must select a different justice for this paper. Failure to do so, and submitting the same paper you did for the other class, will constitute a Honor Code violation and will be treated accordingly. Paper One is due by 10:00 Thursday, 29 September.

Paper TWO: You will select two justices who served on the Court at the same time and write a comparison or contrast. You'll compare judicial and political philosophies, reputations, etc, and discuss how often they voted together or against each other as a way of demonstrating the similarities and differences in judicial and political philosophies. If you are taking or have taken another class that requires a similar paper on a one or more justices, you must select a different justice for this paper. Failure to do so, and submitting the same paper you did for the other class, will constitute a Honor Code violation and will be treated accordingly. Paper Two is due by 10:00 Thursday, 17 November.

Paper THREE: You will select four cases of a very similar nature (to be defined for you in class) heard within a period of seven years by the same court (i.e., at least seven of the justices served for all four cases). You will analyze and compare the votes in all three cases looking for patterns, deviations from judicial philosophy on the part of any justices, and note particularly any differences in votes or circumstances that might cause a justice to vote "out of norm." Further information will be provided in class. Paper Three is due by 10:00, Thursday, 1 3 December.