What we call judicial review today came about in the case Marbury v. Madison (1803), when Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall assumed that power from the legislator. Marbury v Madison made it clear that the Supreme Court had claimed Judicial Supremacy in deciding unconstitutionality. In the book, Taking Away the Constitution From the Courts, author Mark Tushnet argues, “Doing away with judicial review would have one clear effect: It would return all constitutional decision-making to the people acting politically. It would make populist constitutional law the only constitutional law there is” (154). This ideology would have slight advantages, yet a myriad disadvantages for our nation. The majority of the populist does not have the technical
…show more content…
The institution of the Supreme Court is anti-democratic. They are the final decision makers and there is no check to their power. Yet their role in making changes to the constitution comes from some sort of injustice that makes us question how the text has been interpreted. A citizen must take legal action and go through an arduous process to reach the high court. This process is intentionally difficult so only matters that are truly perceived of as immoral and consist of enough social implications, will be heard. This eliminates many of the political and opinionated ideals that people want changed, but brings to light what society is passionate …show more content…
Whether it is the President, Supreme Court, or Congress making the decisions on what is unconstitutional, ultimately it is the peoples document. There should be a democratic vote by the people after the court makes a “final” decision. This vote should garner 2/3 of the populist and then only it can be passed. This way we will prevent political ideals from plaguing judicial review, whilst opening room for the majoritarian peoples desires to make their way into verdicts. Cases in history that have been against the populist majority, yet for the minority elite include Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade, and Bush v. Gore. The process of judicial review will become much more transparent once there is going to be a national vote implemented. Also we can keep the amendment process, where instead of 3/4, Congress and States should agree on a 2/3 majority, along with society’s 2/3 vote. This way balance is spread out more and there is an extra branch checking the power of the
The institution of the Supreme Court is anti-democratic. They are the final decision makers and there is no check to their power. Yet their role in making changes to the constitution comes from some sort of injustice that makes us question how the text has been interpreted. A citizen must take legal action and go through an arduous process to reach the high court. This process is intentionally difficult so only matters that are truly perceived of as immoral and consist of enough social implications, will be heard. This eliminates many of the political and opinionated ideals that people want changed, but brings to light what society is passionate …show more content…
Whether it is the President, Supreme Court, or Congress making the decisions on what is unconstitutional, ultimately it is the peoples document. There should be a democratic vote by the people after the court makes a “final” decision. This vote should garner 2/3 of the populist and then only it can be passed. This way we will prevent political ideals from plaguing judicial review, whilst opening room for the majoritarian peoples desires to make their way into verdicts. Cases in history that have been against the populist majority, yet for the minority elite include Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade, and Bush v. Gore. The process of judicial review will become much more transparent once there is going to be a national vote implemented. Also we can keep the amendment process, where instead of 3/4, Congress and States should agree on a 2/3 majority, along with society’s 2/3 vote. This way balance is spread out more and there is an extra branch checking the power of the