Supreme court justices are politicians. The most basic definition of a politician is, a person that achieves a position of policy making over an organized community. Judges, in theory, should be fair, unbiased, neutral, impartial and not based or linked to any political party or movement. However, decisions made by the Supreme Court judges have had huge political significance. While it’s not the standard in lower courts, the United States Supreme Court is forced to make political and judicial decisions, and must be viewed as a political and judicial institution. A judicial decision is based on the question was a law broken. However, because the Supreme Court is the highest court of the land, they also must make political decisions some of
…show more content…
The constitution does not expressly state this, but many of the founding fathers accepted this idea. From the time of the constitutional convention to the decision in Marbury v. Madison there are only 5 case of judicial review, all of which stuck to the idea of the Supreme Court stepping in only when there is a gravely unconstitutional act committed. Thomas Jefferson ordered William Marbury’s commission to be a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia from former president and federalist Johns Adams not to be delivered. In response, Marbury went to the court and asked for a writ of mandamus, an order to a government official to fulfill their duties. Chief Justice Marshall presented a question in the decision of Marbury v. Madison; was asking the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus constitutional? The Judiciary Act of 1789 stated that the Supreme Court had the power to issue writs of mandamus its under original jurisdiction, conflicting with article three of the constitution which states “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction” (Section 2, Clause 2). Marbury addressed the issue of …show more content…
Madison allows the Supreme Court to deem federal law conflicts with the constitution, to say the law is invalid and stop enforcement. Since then judicial review has grown to any action by the sate or national government it finds unconstitutional. It would be hard to overstate the importance of Marbury v. Madison, as precedents set by judicial review have clearly shaped America by defining the constitution more specifically. The Court became the arbiter of the constitution, and had the final say what it meant. This made the court a true authority on all constitutional matters to come. Judicial review has enabled the courts to rule on some of the most controversial issues of generations. However, it also ultimately was the moment that defined Supreme Court Justices as not only judges but as politicians as well. When the power of judicial review was solidified, it gave the court the ability to govern the country. This power provides lends an important debate over when the Court can and should use this political power. What is the balance between judge and politician? Should the court use this power to increase the power of the national government? Or should this power be used to curtail national legislative power and increase the liberties given to
The constitution does not expressly state this, but many of the founding fathers accepted this idea. From the time of the constitutional convention to the decision in Marbury v. Madison there are only 5 case of judicial review, all of which stuck to the idea of the Supreme Court stepping in only when there is a gravely unconstitutional act committed. Thomas Jefferson ordered William Marbury’s commission to be a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia from former president and federalist Johns Adams not to be delivered. In response, Marbury went to the court and asked for a writ of mandamus, an order to a government official to fulfill their duties. Chief Justice Marshall presented a question in the decision of Marbury v. Madison; was asking the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus constitutional? The Judiciary Act of 1789 stated that the Supreme Court had the power to issue writs of mandamus its under original jurisdiction, conflicting with article three of the constitution which states “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction” (Section 2, Clause 2). Marbury addressed the issue of …show more content…
Madison allows the Supreme Court to deem federal law conflicts with the constitution, to say the law is invalid and stop enforcement. Since then judicial review has grown to any action by the sate or national government it finds unconstitutional. It would be hard to overstate the importance of Marbury v. Madison, as precedents set by judicial review have clearly shaped America by defining the constitution more specifically. The Court became the arbiter of the constitution, and had the final say what it meant. This made the court a true authority on all constitutional matters to come. Judicial review has enabled the courts to rule on some of the most controversial issues of generations. However, it also ultimately was the moment that defined Supreme Court Justices as not only judges but as politicians as well. When the power of judicial review was solidified, it gave the court the ability to govern the country. This power provides lends an important debate over when the Court can and should use this political power. What is the balance between judge and politician? Should the court use this power to increase the power of the national government? Or should this power be used to curtail national legislative power and increase the liberties given to