True or False

Question

Judicial activism involves judges interpreting the law broadly and sometimes making decisions that expand judicial power.
Judicial review, established in Marbury v. Madison, says that the Supreme Court could declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.
The Senate nominates federal judges, and the President approves them.
The Supreme Court reigns supreme with both original and appellate jurisdiction, while federal courts handle cases involving federal law or disputes between citizens of different states.

Answer 1

Let’s analyze each statement:

1. Judicial activism involves judges interpreting the law broadly and sometimes making decisions that expand judicial power.

   • True: Judicial activism refers to judicial rulings that are suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law. This often involves a broad interpretation of constitutional or statutory provisions.

2. Judicial review, established in Marbury v. Madison, says that the Supreme Court could declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.

   • True: Judicial review is indeed the power of the courts to declare laws or actions unconstitutional, and this was established in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison in 1803.

3. The Senate nominates federal judges, and the President approves them.

   • False: The correct process is that the President nominates federal judges, and the Senate confirms those nominations.

4. The Supreme Court reigns supreme with both original and appellate jurisdiction, while federal courts handle cases involving federal law or disputes between citizens of different states.

   • True: The Supreme Court has both original jurisdiction (in cases involving states and ambassadors) and appellate jurisdiction. Federal courts handle cases involving federal law and can adjudicate disputes between citizens of different states, typically when the amount in controversy exceeds a certain threshold.

So, the answers are:

1. True
2. True
3. False
4. True