The Framers took certain measures to insulate federal judges and Supreme Court justices alike from the vagaries of partisan politics. The Framers did not want federal judges to be influenced or pressured into interpreting and applying laws or deciding cases to satisfy the desires of any political entity, even Congress or the President himself. The law was to be supreme, as untouchable and as blind to partisan arguments and party shifts as possible. To this end, Congress is not allowed to cut federal judges’ and Supreme Court justices’ salaries, so that a reduction in pay cannot be threatened in hopes of manipulating a judge’s finding. Additionally, both federal and Supreme Court justices serve for life, so that they cannot be unfairly removed from their positions by partisan motivations. In a similar vein, federal and Supreme Court judges are appointed to their jobs by the President; in this way, no federal judge owes their job to an election or a particular political party. However, as a check on the President’s power of appointment, all federal judges and Supreme Court justices must be approved by a majority of senators; no federal judge, even the Supreme Court’s Chief Justice himself, is immune from this process of confirmation.

While fiery debate about the proper roles and proceedings of both federal courts and the Supreme Court is not at all uncommon, by far the most controversial topic is judicial discretion. Judicial discretion is otherwise understood as the methodology used by federal justices in interpreting the Constitution, as applied to specific cases. Many people advocate a policy of judicial restraint, in which federal judges do not attempt to make policies through their rulings, preferring simply to follow past precedents as exactly as possible. A similar viewpoint holds that federal judges should interpret the Constitution precisely as the Framers wanted, adhering strictly to the Framers’ original intentions when the document was written – a practice otherwise known as original intent or strict constructionism. Opponents of original intent point out that the Constitution is vague or insufficiently explanatory in many instances, so that both Congress and the federal courts must necessarily step in to help clarify these discrepancies. These same individuals also argue that it is nearly impossible for modern-day judges to figure out what the Framers’ intentions were, especially as these men lived hundreds of years ago, in a much different world, and when these men disagreed among themselves quite often anyway. Proponents of judicial activism believe that federal judges should play a decisive role in policymaking by issuing rulings which correct areas of Constitutional vagueness, interpret new sections of the Constitution that have not yet been touched upon, and which amend injustices ignored by the nation’s majority. This debate is existed since nearly the very beginning of the federal court system’s creation and it shows no signs of dying down or of coming to a decisive resolution anytime soon.

Although there are myriad purposes for having Article III judges, arguably the most important among them is that they are insulated from the pressures of politics. Put slightly differently, imagine if you had a case before a judge who was elected rather than appointed, and thus had to answer to a constituency. In broad strokes, this may seem ok, but if we fill in the lines slightly it becomes a little more objectionable. Thus, imagine that you, as an individual, were suing, say “Mickey World,” the famous theme park in your town. Mickey World, as a major theme park, employs over half of the city, and is the biggest donor in every election. Imagine further that the judge presiding over your case is up for election the next year. Are you not at least a little suspicious of the judge’s ability to remain impartial in light of the fact that they must stand election, and you are suing the biggest election donor in your entire city? The Founders recognized the impropriety of such a situation and took pains to avoid it through insulating the federal judiciary from politics.

This is an interesting question. The correct answer is “preventing the defendant from getting ‘hometowned’.” (See below if you don’t remember what “diversity jurisdiction” is). At any rate, the reasoning goes something like this: if you’re a “good ole’ Georgia boy” suing a “Yankee” in Coffee Co. Superior Court (for those of you unfamiliar with small counties in Georgia, Coffee County is a very small, very southern county in SE GA) it seems unlikely that the northern defendant is going to get a fair shake! After all, jury pools in state court are drawn from the county in which the plaintiff filed the action. Moreover, many state judges are actually elected—the judiciary in GA, for example, is elected in a “nonpartisan” election.

Diversity jurisdiction solves this dilemma by allowing defendants to remove their case to federal court (provided they meet the criteria) and avoid suffering any local bias. Federal judges are not elected, they are insulated from politics, and the jury pool for district courts is much deeper and broader (that is, less geographically compact) than it is for state courts.

Remember: in order to bring a case to federal court under “diversity jurisdiction” you must meet two requirements: (1) every plaintiff must be diverse (that is a citizen of a different state) from every defendant, and (2) relief sought must be over $75,000.

A writ of certiorari is issued by a higher court when it wants to review a lower court's decision. A writ of mandamus is an order from a court to an inferior government official ordering him or her to properly fulfill his or her official duties. A writ of habeas corpus is a court order to a person or institution holding someone in custody to deliver the imprisoned person to the court. A writ of assistance is a court order instructing a law enforcement official to perform a certain task. A writ of body attachment is a court order directing the U.S. Marshal to bring a person who has been found in civil contempt to the court.

A Writ of Mandamus is a court order directed at a lesser government official requiring that official to carry out the duties and responsibilities of his or her office.

In the United States Court system, the losing party in a court case has the right to appeal to a higher court about the nature and fairness of the verdict. The ability of the a Federal court, particularly the Supreme Court, to review a court decision made by a lower court is called appellate jurisdiction—as in "appeals."

The Rule of Four is a rule that is used in Supreme Court practice to decide which cases to hear. It states that if four or more judges agree that a case should be heard, then it must be heard. This is not a rule codified into law, but rather a precedent established throughout Supreme Court history.

 is the most common length of oral arguments. For more controversial cases, it may be extended. This a procedural arrangement determined by the Justices. They may hear many cases, and thus oral arguments must be concise.

The Supreme Court agrees to hear the case is the correct answer. Remember that “certiorari” is Latin for “to be informed of” which helps us because that is exactly what the Supreme Court is trying to do here. In other words, once the Supreme Court grants cert, they’ll schedule oral argument (over the merits of the case), and then read numerous briefs (essentially written arguments saying why one side should win/lose) in order to get an understanding of the case and thus render a decision.

Nothing cannot be the correct answer because of all of the reasons above. It is likely true that the Supreme Court is interested in the case, but that is only part of the answer.

The petitioner wins/loses cannot be correct because the Supreme Court has only agreed to HEAR the case; they cannot render a decision until after they do so.

The lower court(s) being reversed cannot be true because the Supreme Court may not in fact reverse the lower court: they can affirm (that is, uphold) it. Indeed, oftentimes the Supreme Court will take a case and affirm the reasoning of the lower court in order to clarify a point of law.