The political questions doctrine holds that certain matters are inappropriate for judicial consideration because they are best resolved by the political branches of government.
Here are the factors from Baker v. Carr, which noted that "[t]he nonjusticiability of a political question is primarily a function of the separation of powers." Casebook p. 100. The factors are discussed on page 101 of the Casebook:
1. Is there "a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue" to one of the political branches of government?
2. Is there "a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving" the question?
3. Is it impossible to decide the question "without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion?"
4. Is there "an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made?"
5. Is there "the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question?"
Which of these factors apply to the cases we are reading on this issue?
No comments:
Post a Comment