POL S 390 (A1)

Fall 2006

Exam I study questions

You will answer two of these questions, with some choice. Focus on giving complete, direct answers -- not on memorizing a lot of detail that may sidetrack you. (You won't have time to write intros/conclusions that merely repeat information in the body of your essay.)

1. Ian Greene says that "law is composed of words," and Alex Kozinski says that "language has meaning," but they have different views about the role of judges with respect to interpreting the law. Explain.

2. Discuss four reasons why the overwhelming majority of trial court decisions are not appealed. [Hint: This question may have some overlap with why disputes don’t make it into the court system in the first place.] 

3. What makes Galanter’s "party capability" (OS vs. RP) framework an institutional explanation for differences in the legal power of different kinds of litigants?

4. What are three reasons why repeat players don’t necessarily win lawsuits? [One or more of these reasons might be consistent with Galanter’s argument.]

5. Discuss the merits of access to lawyers versus access to legal services for increasing access to justice.

6. In what sense(s) is "access to justice" — criminal and civil — a result of what happens in the political arena, such as legislatures or elections?

7. What is the relationship between state judicial elections and "access to justice"?

8. "You really can’t understand how federal judges are selected in the US without understanding ‘borking.’" Comment.

9. What are four indicators you could use to determine whether Canadian judicial appointments (below the Supreme Court of Canada level) are partisan?

10. Is the new process for appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada better or worse than the previous selection process? Explain your answer fully.

11. To what extent should demographic or ideological representativeness be taken into account in selecting judges?