Since Roosevelt is long dead, I assume this is a homework question.
The court packing plan, as opponents called it, was a scenario in which Franklin Roosevelt added two more members to the US Supreme Court. It was thought that those he added would vote his way in future decisions.
pretty sure it is, its a part of the judicial branch The Supreme Court is not the highest law in the land; the Constitution is. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the final appeals court; decisions made by it are final. But these decisions still represent the interpretation of the court, and such decisions can theoretically be overturned by the same or future courts.
Once the Supreme Court rules on a case, the ruling becomes binding precedent for future decisions. This means that lower courts are required to follow and apply the same legal principles established in the Supreme Court's ruling when deciding similar cases in the future. The ruling sets a legal standard that must be followed unless it is later overruled or modified by a subsequent Supreme Court decision.
entrepreneurial
They are called "precedents of law" and affect how similar present or future cases are decided.
As 'jurisprudence'. Which means that other courts throughout the nation will take them as a lead for their own future decisions. This is not only standard procedure, but also because these courts know that if they go against an earlier Supreme Court decision, they will in the end be overturned if the parties appeal.
Not necessarily. The US Supreme Court sometimes issues per curiam opinions that are binding (on the instant case) but unsigned; however, these decisions do not set precedent for future cases.
Decisions are made to plan for your future.
Decisions about the future of California.
Decisions about the future of California.
No, split decisions in the Supreme Court do not have the same effect as unanimous decisions. A split decision often reflects differing opinions among justices, which can lead to ambiguity in the interpretation of the law and may create precedent that is less clear. In contrast, a unanimous decision signifies a strong consensus, providing clearer guidance and stability in legal interpretation. Consequently, unanimous rulings typically carry more weight and authority in future cases.
Well, his appointment of Joihn Marshall as Chief Justice is considered to have been important for asserting the influence of the Supreme Court.