A few topics discussed in the class: (NOT my words) - These are recaps of a few topics.
Affirmative Action:
"The Affirmative Action topic is an interesting one to say the least. In short, we're talking about what has lately been termed as a form of positive discrimination--a way of redressing injustices of the past by promoting additional educational and workplace opportunities. The context of this policy or program goes beyond ethnicity. It includes gender and sexuality as well.
While many of you seemed to agree with the concept on paper, there was also a sense that many of you believed this initiative has no place in modern-day America. The sense I got from your responses is that we should provide opportunities based on merit. A second prevailing sense from the responses is that many of you felt that a person's race, religion or sex was really no big deal. Could it be that you feel this way because Affirmative Action guidelines spanning back to the 1960's have done their job and achieved the desired outcome? I say this in spite of the recent news events and marches, which, while it seems like a big thing, have (so far) mainly included more extreme hosts on both sides of the aisle as opposed to the average constituent. "
Federalism:
"The two forms that were mentioned the most were Cooperative and New Federalism, with Regulated Federalism being a close third. New Federalism is very similar to Dual Federalism, whereas it is primarily a state-centered approach. States are given money/aid from the federal government and there are very few strings attached in terms of how the states need to spend it. 
Cooperative Federalism allows the federal government to step in and play a bigger role in an effort to keep states "up to par" with nationally-defined goals. The federal government doesn't outright command the states to pursue these goals, but makes attractive offers through grant funding.
Regulated Federalism, as was discussed, imposes funding restrictions on the state and local governments. Basically, the federal government provides aid to the states along with instructions on where and how to spend this aid. If the states do not follow the instructions, the money will be taken away, running the risk of a state receiving less funding during the next fiscal year. It's not as easy-going as Cooperative Federalism."
Court Cases:
"It's very rare that a case jumps straight up to the top rung of the ladder and is heard by the Supreme Court first. Usually, federal case must first go through the trial courts and courts of appeal, respectively.

Trial Courts get first crack at a case. However, cases have to option to appeal the ruling of a Trial Court to the US Court of Appeals. Only about 20% of Trial Court cases will be heard by the Appellate Court. Appellate Court decisions are usually final. Because of this, most cases are heard by more than one judge in order to assure that all perspectives have been addressed and taken into consideration. However, there is one more court that sits higher on the mountain than the Appellate Court. This is the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is very well-insulated...even from the other levels of the justice system. One key aspect of the Supreme Court to keep in mind is that it CANNOT seek out cases to hear. It must wait for cases to be brought to it. If a case is brought to it, there is a litmus test that must be passed.
First and concurrently, the incoming case must have "ripeness" and "standing." Ripeness is a term used to describe a case's "readiness" and its ability to show a true controversy. Standing can be defined as one's ability to show injury. This injury can be economical, personal, or even aesthetic. Next, it must be demonstrated that the case or topic is not a "moot" point and is still valid and relevant. This goes hand in hand with another concept discussed in the chapter, "precedent." Precedent is utilizing facts and guidelines of similar case in the past in order to make a ruling on a current case. Often times, if the Court sees that a similar issue has already been addressed sufficiently, taking another look becomes "moot."
Assuming these areas are of no consequence, a case must also go through the Solicitor General. By definition, the SG is the top governmental lawyer in cases where the government is a party. This office is responsible for "screening" cases and removing ones that are undeserving of the Supreme Court's precious time. One possible flaw in this could be the unbelievably low odds that the SG would hand a case to the Supreme Court that the government may lose. As the top lawyer for the US, it's their job to represent their client.
Next, deserving cases are given to the Supreme Court for them to vote on. Four of Nine Justices must vote "yes" in order for a case to be officially accepted by the Supreme Court (writ of certiorari). While this is the primary method, a less-traveled path is the Appeals Court asking the Supreme for instructions or guidance on a point of law that has never been decided (writ of certification). Once a case is brought before the Court, there is a separate process that goes into the decision-making process."