what is the purpose of Judiciary Act of 1789?
141619
It set up the Supreme Court and the judiciary.
697684
The power to confirm appointments of US Supreme Court Judges by the President.  And my reading of the constitution (Articles I, II & III) and old law classes indicate that the the US Supreme court has no check on this power....as it would allow the court, in effect, to select their own members.\n\nSo much for 100% of the checks and balances theory.  If someone else can cite differently I would appreciate the information.
1022337
According to the dictionary, "court of Justice is a room or building where trials are held on matters decided by laws of the land."\nOur founding "fathers" set certain laws in motion based on Christian faith, honesty & basic equality.  It's a shame people with clout have been able to bend laws to fit what they want to see happen & our court system does not seem to be as honest as it use to be.
194312
To prevent a tyranical abuse of power, maintain the US as a republic instead of a dictatorship, and to provide weights and balances in passing special interest laws.\n\nThis is one reason
1182529
Here you go:\n\n"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. \n\nSection 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. \n\nSection 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. \n\nSection 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. \n\nSection 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. "\n\n"The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Thirty-ninth Congress, on the 13th of June, 1866. It was declared, in a certificate of the Secretary of State dated July 28, 1868 to have been ratified by the legislatures of 28 of the 37 States. The dates of ratification were: Connecticut, June 25, 1866; New Hampshire, July 6, 1866; Tennessee, July 19, 1866; New Jersey, September 11, 1866 (subsequently the legislature rescinded its ratification, and on March 24, 1868, readopted its resolution of rescission over the Governor's veto, and on Nov. 12, 1980, expressed support for the amendment); Oregon, September 19, 1866 (and rescinded its ratification on October 15, 1868); Vermont, October 30, 1866; Ohio, January 4, 1867 (and rescinded its ratification on January 15, 1868); New York, January 10, 1867; Kansas, January 11, 1867; Illinois, January 15, 1867; West Virginia, January 16, 1867; Michigan, January 16, 1867; Minnesota, January 16, 1867; Maine, January 19, 1867; Nevada, January 22, 1867; Indiana, January 23, 1867; Missouri, January 25, 1867; Rhode Island, February 7, 1867; Wisconsin, February 7, 1867; Pennsylvania, February 12, 1867; Massachusetts, March 20, 1867; Nebraska, June 15, 1867; Iowa, March 16, 1868; Arkansas, April 6, 1868; Florida, Ju
1002168
(taken directly from Wikipedia; words within < > are linked under sources):\n\nThe Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court; instead, Congress has the power to fix the number of Justices. Originally, the total number of Justices was set at six by the <Judiciary Act of 1789>. As the country grew geographically, the number of Justices steadily increased. The court was expanded to seven members in 1807, nine in 1837 and ten in 1863. \n\nIn 1866, however, Congress wished to deny President Andrew Johnson any Supreme Court appointments, and therefore passed the <Judicial Circuits Act>, which provided that the next three Justices to retire would not be replaced; thus, the size of the Court would eventually reach seven by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. By the <Circuit Judges Act of 1869>, the number of Justices was again set at nine (the Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices), where it has remained ever since. \n\nINTERESTING NOTE: President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court (see Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937); his plan would have allowed the President to appoint one new, additional justice for every justice who reached the age of seventy but did not retire from the bench, until the Court reached a maximum size of fifteen justices. Ostensibly, this was to ease the burdens of the docket on the elderly judges, but it was widely believed that the President's actual purpose was to add Justices who would favor his New Deal policies, which had been regularly ruled unconstitutional by the Court. The plan failed in Congress and the court changed course (see the switch in time that saved nine). In any case, Roosevelt's long tenure in the White House allowed him to appoint a large number of Justices.
424754
Absolutely. It's essential. The reason for this is that legislators can't possibly cover everything. The world is constantly changing, and there are always new issues coming up - issues that no one would have otherwise thought of. So, a lot of laws have to be made up when there is a need for it.\n\nEDIT: I'd like to add that judges don't just make up laws arbitrarily. Believe it or not, judges actually try to be fair, but the problem is it's not always clear what the right decision is, and the existing laws are either archaic or insufficient for making that decision. That is why both sides of an argument have to be heard. Then a jury deliberates and prescribes a judgement. The judge then takes everything into careful consideration and makes his or her decision. A new law is made if the situation calls for it.
271351
Taxation without representation.\nWe were forced to pay taxes to support a government that did not support its colonies and allowed those colonies no voice in that government.\n\nIn March, 1774, the British Parliament passed what were called the Intolerable Acts or Coercive Acts by the Americans. The Acts were designed specifically to punish the colony of Massachusetts for defying British policies; specifically, for the Boston Tea Party. Outrage in the Americas over the Intolerable Acts led to the calling of the First Continental Congress in September, 1774. During the First Congress, which included representatives from all of the colonies except Georgia, the delegates decided to take several actions, including a boycott of British goods. It also drafted a declaration to the King and Parliament, outlining the position of the Congress. This work is the Declaration of Rights and Grievances.\n\nThe Intolerable Acts, called "impolitic, unjust, and cruel," included the Boston Port Act, the Massachusetts Government Act, the Quartering Act, and the Impartial Administration of Justice Act. The Boston Port Act closed the port of Boston to trade; the Massachusetts Government Act revoked the colony's charter and forbade town meetings; the Quartering Act required colonists to house British soldiers on demand; and the Impartial Administration of Justice Act removed British officials from the jurisdiction of Massachusetts courts. Another Act established Roman Catholicism and a new system of government in the newly acquired colony of Quebec.
813956
Yes, the Senate.  The constitutional says the executive appoints with the "advice and consent" of the senate.  In the good 'ol days the Senate was not popularly elected but was appointed by the state legislatures (2 from each state--sort of like the House of Lords in the English system).  In any event the idea was to better insulate the judiciary from the will of the "masses" because the Founding Fathers knew that the courts would be called upon to protect the interests of minority groups and to make unpopular decisions.  They were smart guys.
1119925
Law's main purpose is to protect.  Protect a company from liability.  Protect a company from a buy-out.  Protect a citizen from a ciminal.  Protect a person from a violation of his/her rights.
243451
Judicial activism implies that judges who do not like the laws created by Congress will fashion new laws through their published opinions (which is an impermissible usurpation of Congress's law-making power so long as the laws they overturn are not in violation of the Constitution).  The most aggressive judicial activists will not even heed the rules and policies set down by the higher courts in other cases.
878852
That's a long list.... instead of giving the answers, I'll give you a link to study.....\n\nBut to answer quickly....\n\nThe constitution was put into effect in 1789, it does serve the people by making "Expo Facto" laws illegal, provide postal service to all citizens and divides power among 3 branches of government just to name a few. It was made even more powerful for the people when the bill of rights (the first 10 amendments) was passed and the amendments were ratified.
57330
It was formed to protect the citizenry.  The Constitution is a social compact that limits what the government can do, so as to protect our rights
372065
The constitution created the Supreme Court and authorized Congress to create lower courts.
753417
The judicial branch hears cases that challenge or require interpretation of the legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President. It consists of the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts.\nIt acts as checks and balance on the other two governing branches, the Executive and Legislative branches, therefore it must be independent of the other two branches.  the American Government needs all three branches to function properly.  Taking any one out of the equation would give you a nonworking equation and what we know as democracy in this country would fail.
192614
He ruled in favor of Marbury.  This is a landmark case because it was the beginning of the practice known as judicial review-  \nthe supreme court takes on the responsibility of determining the constitutionality of goverment actions.
883865
Article 3 of the Constitution determines there is to be a Supreme Court, however, it leaves the number of justices up to Congress.  The Judiciary Act of the 1789 created one Chief Justice and 5 Associates, then was gradually increased to a total of 10 in 1863.  Andrew Johnson's administration reduced the number to 7 as vacancies occured, though it never fell to less than 8.  Congress made the number 9 in 1948\n\nSo, in short, yes there was a time there were more than 9 justices.