<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Judiciary Branch Review by Laura Harris</title>
      <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview</link>
      <description></description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <pubDate>2016-04-11 20:42:26 UTC</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>2017-09-24 14:38:43 UTC</lastBuildDate>
      <webMaster>hello@padlet.com</webMaster>
      
      <item>
         <title></title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105187581</link>
         <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://youtu.be/mXw-hEB263k?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtOfse2ncvffeelTrqvhrz8H" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 20:59:02 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105187581</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title></title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105187634</link>
         <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://youtu.be/IGyx5UEwgtA?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtOfse2ncvffeelTrqvhrz8H" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 20:59:27 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105187634</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title></title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105187689</link>
         <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://youtu.be/7sualy8OiKk?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtOfse2ncvffeelTrqvhrz8H" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 20:59:56 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105187689</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title></title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105187720</link>
         <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://youtu.be/mWYFwl93uCM?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtOfse2ncvffeelTrqvhrz8H" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 21:00:12 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105187720</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title></title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105187795</link>
         <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://youtu.be/QjLcLguoKC4?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtOfse2ncvffeelTrqvhrz8H" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 21:00:51 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105187795</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Article III</title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193040</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>Article 3 of the Constitution talks about the Judicial Branch.&nbsp;<br>Link:&nbsp;<a href="http://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-iii">http://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-iii</a></div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 21:53:47 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193040</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Original Jurisdiction</title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193072</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>The first court the hear a case, before an appeal is heard</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 21:54:05 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193072</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Appellate Jurisdiction</title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193097</link>
         <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 21:54:21 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193097</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>statute</title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193106</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>A written law passed by a legislative body</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 21:54:33 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193106</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Precedent</title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193122</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>Prior cases whose principles are used by judges as the basis for their decision in a present case.&nbsp;</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 21:54:44 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193122</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Common Law</title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193143</link>
         <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 21:54:53 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193143</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Presidential Appointment of Judges</title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193164</link>
         <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 21:55:05 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193164</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Supreme Court Session</title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193186</link>
         <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 21:55:17 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193186</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Senatorial Courtesy</title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193197</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>The practice whereby the president, before formally nominating a person for a federal judgeship, seeks the indication that senators from the candidate’s own state support the nomination.&nbsp;</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 21:55:26 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193197</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>McCulloch v. Maryland</title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193212</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>Date of Case:<br>1819</div><div>Decided: Mar. 6, 1819<br>Facts Behind the Case:<br>Congress chartered The Second Bank of the US in 1816. In 1818, Maryland forced taxes on the bank through legislature. James W. McCulloch, who was the cashier of one of the banks, refused to pay the tax.<br>Court Decision:<br>Unanimous Decision</div><div>The Court held that Congress could incorporate the bank. The Court also held that the State of Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers. Congress has the power to charter the second Bank of the US because of the Necessary and Proper Clause.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 21:55:36 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193212</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Gideon v. Wainwright</title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193235</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>Date of Case:<br>1963 Decided: Mar. 18, 1963<br>Facts Behind the Case:<br>Clarence Earl Gideon broke into a poolroom with a plan of committing a misdemeanor offense. He was then charged in Florida with a felony by the state court. Gideon represented himself in trial because a Florida state law said an attorney can only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases. Gideon was found guilty and was sentenced to prison for five years. Gideon, then filed a habeas corpus petition in Florida Supreme Court. He said that the trial court’s decision violated his right to be represented by counsel. However, the Florida Supreme Court denied the habeas corpus relief.<br>Court Decision:<br>Unanimous Decision for Clarence Earl Gideon</div><div>The court decided that the 6th Amendment’s right to counsel in criminal cases was also opened to felony defendants in state courts. The Supreme Courts also reinforced that the Constitution Framers valued the right of an accused person to have a proper defense, thus the courts must respect that right. The court was consistent with the Constitution to require state courts to appoint attorney for defendants who could not afford it themselves.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 21:55:48 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193235</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>California Board of Regents v. Bakke</title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193259</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>Date of Case:<br>1978 Decided: Jun. 26, 1978<br>Facts Behind the Case:<br>Allan Bakke applied to University of California Medical School at Davis, but he was rejected both times. The Medical School reserved 16/100 places in the upcoming class for “qualified” minorities in order to remedy unfair minority exclusions. Allan Bakke had college GPA and test scores that exceeded all of the minority students that were admitted when he was rejected. Bakke contended that, due to his race, he was not admitted. This was done first in the California courts, and then in the Supreme Court.<br>Court Decision:<br>Decision 1: 8-1 for Bakke</div><div>Decision 2: 5-4 for Regents of the University of California</div><div>Decision 3: 5-4 for Regents of the University of California</div><div>Decision 4: 5-4 for Bakke</div><div>There was a yes and no for the agreement that the Equal Protection Clause prohibits the university’s specific race-based admissions program, and that Bakke shall be admitted. There was not a single majority opinion. 4 of the justices of this case asserted that any racial quota system that is supported by the government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The main justice, Lewis F. Powell, Dr., agreed, and casted the vote ordering the medical school to let Bakke in for admissions. Powell argued that the school’s racial quotes were rigidly used, which violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Powell also asserted that race can be criteria for college admission.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 21:56:03 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193259</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Roe v. Wade</title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193273</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>Date of Case:<br>1973 Decided: Jan. 22, 1973<br>Facts Behind the Case:<br>Jane Roe, a Texan, wanted abortion to rid her of her pregnancy. At that time, Texas did not allow abortions unless it was to save the woman bearing the child. The court heard arguments twice after granting certiorari. In the first time, Sarah Weddington, Roe’s attorney, could not find the constitutional hook of her argument. Her opponent, Jay Floyd, misfired from the start. Sarah Weddington strengthened her constitutional argument in the second round. Robert Flowers, an opponent, came under strong questioning.<br>Court Decision:<br>7-2 Decision for Jane Roe</div><div>The Constitution embraces a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. The Court reinforces that a woman’s right for an abortion is protected by the 14th Amendment by the right of privacy. This Court also gave women full independence of the pregnancy during the first trimester. The states were allowed to define interests for the second and third trimesters. 46 states were affected by this Court Decision.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 21:56:12 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193273</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Brown v. Board of Education</title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193293</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>Date of Case:<br>1954 Decided: May 17, 1954<br>Facts Behind the Case:<br>This case represents four cases based in separate states. It was related to the public school segregation because of race. In each case, African Americans were not allowed to go to certain public schools because of the laws in place that allowed education to be segregated by race. The African Americans said that this segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.&nbsp;<br>Court Decision:<br>Unanimous Decision for Brown Et Al.</div><div>Separate but equal educational facilities for racial minorities is inherently unequal violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The court ruled that the segregation of public education based only on race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The segregation based on race is detrimental to African American children.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 21:56:23 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193293</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Dual Court System</title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193303</link>
         <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 21:56:32 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193303</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Writ of Certiorari</title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193328</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>A decision of at least four of the nine Supreme Court justices to review a decision of a lower court</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 21:56:41 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193328</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Amicus Curiae</title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193353</link>
         <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 21:56:52 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193353</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Brief</title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193377</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>a legal term referring to a case summary</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 21:57:04 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193377</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Habeas Corpus</title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193390</link>
         <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 21:57:15 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193390</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Stare Decisis</title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193412</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>When a court decides to uphold a previous ruling, continuing a precedent</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 21:57:28 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193412</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Forma Pauperis</title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193433</link>
         <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 21:57:41 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193433</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Judicial Review</title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193522</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>Judicial Review is the power of the Supreme Court to review the actions of the legislative and executive branches to declare if they are abiding by the constitution or not.&nbsp; The court case Marbury vs. Madison helped to define the basis for which judicial review can be used.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 21:58:40 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193522</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Dissenting Opinion</title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193539</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>A legal case written by 1+ judges that express disagreement with the majority opinion of the court which gives rise to its judgement.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 21:58:51 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193539</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Concurring Opinion</title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193560</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>A written opinion by one or more judges of a court which agrees with the decision made by the majority of the court, but states different (or additional) reasons as the basis for his or her decision.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 21:59:02 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193560</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Majority Opinion</title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193573</link>
         <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 21:59:11 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193573</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Earl Warren</title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193599</link>
         <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 21:59:21 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193599</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>William Rehnquist</title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193620</link>
         <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 21:59:30 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193620</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Warren Burger</title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193646</link>
         <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 21:59:39 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193646</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>John Marshall</title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193660</link>
         <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 21:59:49 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193660</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Activist Judges</title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193674</link>
         <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 21:59:58 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193674</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;Criticisms of the Court</title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193728</link>
         <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 22:00:20 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193728</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Please click on a topic to add to the review!</title>
         <author>jl2110</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193748</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<pre><strong>Add the definition, link to an article, or just add a fact you learned. This is a live class review. :)</strong></pre>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-04-11 22:00:34 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/jl2110/JudiciaryBranchReview/wish/105193748</guid>
      </item>
   </channel>
</rss>
