What is the meaning of Jurisdiction in American Legal System?
Jurisdiction has the same meaning in the American legal system as it has in jurisprudence in general. It means legal competence in terms of territory, which differs from the nature of felony, offence, according to the place of occurrence and type of persons affected and the law governing the acts alleged.
Is the judicial review process giving courts too much power?
No.(EDIT: When I originally answered as above, there was no explanation in the question. Below is my response to the edited question.When we talk about separation of powers in Western democratic systems (including the US and UK), there is not supposed to be separate and omnipotent entities; each portion of the government is supposed to be limited explicitly by virtue of being subjugated to one or more of the other branches.In the US, we have Executive, Legislative and Judiciary. It's a sort of rock-paper-scissor situation, where each branch is superior and inferior to each other branch in specific ways. The legislative can only make law, it cannot enforce it at all as that power lies in the executive alone. Yet the legislative provides the budget and resource to the executive, and defines those laws. The judiciary cannot write the law (except insofar as common law and interpretation of law applies), yet it is the only entity which can explicitly determine what laws 'mean'. It goes on beyond this, but it the system of judicial review is part of the required interdependence of the parts of Western democratic governments.)
Judicial Review/Judicial Precedent?
Ok, first, with respect to "Born and Bred", an appellate court cannot "review" a criminal case in which the defendant is found not guilty no matter how badly the judge screwed up the law. This is because double jeopardy (cannot be put on trial twice for the same crime) would prevent the trial court from trying him again. Now to your question, precedent is a legal decision of a superior court that binds all lower courts within its jurisdiction in cases involving similar facts. So, as a result of the case you cited above, lower courts are bound by precedent to find that bringing the press into someone's home to execute a warrant violates the person's Fourth Amendment rights. Because this was a decision of the United States Supreme Court ALL courts in the US who are presented with these facts and a Fourth Amendment claim must follow this precedent. Precedent also will bind the same court that issued the earlier opinion in a case with similar facts unless it overrules the earlier decision. So for example, if the United States Supreme Court had held in 1980 that it was OK to bring the press into someone's home when executing a search warrant, it would have been bound by its own precedent to decide your case the same way UNLESS it decided to "recede" from the 1980 case. In your case, when you see citations to earlier cases decided by the Supreme Court (e.g. Payton v. New York), they are citing to their own precedent to support their decision in the current case. Judicial review is simply the authority or power to review a case or a law to determine whether the constitution has been followed. This principal was established a long time ago in a case called Marbury v. Madison. So the United States Supreme Court can exercise judicial review over laws and cases that come from the federal circuit courts of appeal and the supreme courts of each state. If anything needs clarification, just ask. I will be happy to follow-up.
What is judicial review?
Judicial Review is the process by which courts determine whether the exercise of power conferred on public bodies by statute or the constitution has been exercised within accordance to that law. You can get judicial review through four factors: - if you're directly affected by some sort of government action without compsenation, you can sue the government. -if you've been charged with a criminal offense -if the federal government refers questions to the Supreme Court -if someone else has a proceeding before the courts, they can seek to intervene or make arguments around a particular issue As for how the courts use it to influence public policy - well, we are seeing an increasing amount of political issues being taken out of the political arena and brought before the courts. An activist judiciary can interpret and change laws however they want to - look at the Persons Case in Canada -the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council decided that women WERE persons, despite the fact former Prime Minister Mackenzie King did not want to appoint women to the Senate.