Home
26 January 2022 ( 26 views )
Advertisements

Supreme Court | Explanation with All Details

Yüksek mahkemeyi yağlanmış bir makine gibi çalıştıran hiyerarşidir. Her şey en alttan başlar. Devlet mahkemeleri başladığımız yer. Ülkede 50 eyalet ve düzinelerce mahkeme var, bu yüzden yaşadığınız eyaletteki mahkemeden başlamak en iyisidir. Ancak her dava mahkemeye gitmez. Bazıları mahkeme dışında yerleşti. Ufak bir anlaşmazlık varsa avukat gidip çözmeye çalışır. Bu davadan çok daha kolay. Davanızı mahkemeye taşımak istiyorsanız iki seçeneğiniz var; eyalet veya federal mahkeme. Mahkeme sonucunu beğenmezseniz veya yargı sürecinde bir haksızlık yapıldığını düşünüyorsanız, her zaman itiraz edebilirsiniz. Eyalet mahkemeleri itirazınızı görmezden gelebilir. Eğer yaparlarsa, davanız düşer, ancak her zaman baştan başlayabilirsiniz. Federal temyiz mahkemelerinin bir diğer adı da devre mahkemeleridir. 12 devre mahkemesi vardır ve bunlar Amerika kıtasında bölgesel olarak dağıtılır. Yani 12 bölge için 12 mahkeme var. Aralarında farklılık gösterebilirler. Örneğin, Bölge 9 mahkemesindeki yargıçlar Bölge 5'teki yargıçlardan daha liberaldir. Temyiz başvuruları çevre mahkemelerinde 3 yargıç tarafından değerlendirilirken, eyalet mahkemelerinde bu sayı yalnızca 1'dir. Federal mahkemelerin yargı yetkisine sahip olduğu ve tüm davaların çevre mahkemelerine taşınması gereken 4 senaryo vardır;


• Söz konusu yasanın federal olduğu durumlar
• Anlaşmayı içeren davalar
• BM anayasasını içeren davalar
• ABD hükümetinin taraf olduğu davalar

Neden devre mahkemelerine götürülmeli sorusunun cevabı, davanın iki tarafının farklı eyaletlerde olabileceği ve eyaletlerin hakimlerinin kendi eyaletlerini elinde tutabilecekleri şeklindedir. Bunu önlemek için dava, ortak bir mahkemede tarafsız hakimler tarafından görülür. Peki bir dava yüksek mahkemeye nasıl ulaşabilir? Temyiz davalarına bakılacak en son yer yüksek mahkemedir ve nihai yargı yetkisine sahiptir. Yargıtay'ın nihai yargı yetkisine sahip olduğu davalar;

• Devlet ve devlet arasındaki dava
• İki veya daha fazla eyalet arasındaki dava
• Yabancı büyükelçileri veya cumhurbaşkanlarını içeren davalar
• Bir eyaletin vatandaşları tarafından, başka bir eyalete veya yabacı önümüzdeki eyalette açılan davalar

What they all have in common is that none of them can happen within just one state. The case should raise a federal question. The high court, predictably, does not hear every case. It has certain rules for deciding this. First, there must be litigation or controversy. So they cannot comment on an event without a law. There must be a lawsuit or injury for this. Second, the parties must have specific interests in the outcome of the litigation. Third, the parties must be alive. In addition, the supreme court has to review cases against which the federal government has appealed. There is an obligation to look into the cases that have been tried by many courts and for which a common conclusion cannot be reached.
The Supreme Court has the power to enact laws unconstitutional. Checking whether the court is in both the legislative and executive branches is judicial review. Technically, judicial review is the power to review and override the judgment taken by the legislative and executive branches of the federal or state. Federal courts have the power to review congressional laws (statutes), state ordinances, federal bureaucratic chambers, and the president's decisions. The Supreme Court gave the cat this judicial review power after the Marbury vs Madison case. If we need to open the case; Marbury was a civil servant. When he went to get the necessary documents and permission to do his own business, Madison, the Secretary of State there, refused. Marbury then went to the high court, as any citizen would. His goal was to get a mandamus letter that would force Madison to give him his job. Marbury had the right to be appointed, but the supreme court could not grant him that because the law that told him to do so was unconstitutional. Marshall, the presiding judge at the time, received authority from the supreme court to issue mandamus inscriptions. Thus, this act gave birth to the right to give the inscriptions that they could not give at first because it was unconstitutional. It was one of those good decisions made out of diplomatic pain. Although the court seemed to lose power at first, it gave the court the power to enact unconstitutional laws. What worried many was the power of the supreme court to reverse the decisions made by elected officials in the legislatures. This power was strictly against the principle of separation of powers. But no one was worried because that power was not abused. Already, some officials are using powers that were not given to them to move the law right.

The reason for this is that the state has developed and grown over time, and since everything that is done is in the interests of the country, the concern was shortlived.
The things that affect judges in the Supreme Court in their decision making are innumerable, except for the structure of the court system. They may have been influenced by Congress. It doesn't matter who the current head of state is, either, because the court is independent and cannot be manipulated. Precedents of perspective and examples can influence judge decisions. Second, judges realize that their judgments will be studied and taught by future historians and lawyers. They also know that it can have a tremendous impact, especially on the history of the country. That's why they act strategically. But often judges are also influenced by their political ideology and psychological orientation. Such factors have given rise to two kinds of perspectives. In these; judicial activism and judicial restraint. Judicial activism is the idea that the court should act as a policy tool. In other words, it is the idea that the government is similar to the other two branches. Judicial activism tends to go beyond constitutions and statutes to address the broader social sphere. They are also directly opposed to enacting laws. This viewpoint is considered more liberal. In judicial restraint, judges should look at the events in detail and their decisions should be permanent in the law. It can be said to make a kind of law. Activism treats people and rights more freely. In constraints, the courts should not change the decisions chosen by the congress while making policy. If the congress has made these decisions unconstitutional, the situation changes. In short, there are dozens of factors that affect the judges when they make decisions, and we often do not know which of them are affected by the judges.

Recommended Videos

Advertisements

You may also like

Recipes that Help You Stay Younger Herbal Solution to Underarm Darkening Natural Skin Firming Methods That Will Work For You Get Glowing Skin With These Six Natural Oils