What Are The Pros And Cons Of The Supreme Court

Improved Essays
The Supreme Court is a powerful and fundamental branch in the current United States government. The unelected justices of the Court are able to strike down legislation that is interpreted as unconstitutional. The Court is able to act as a policy maker and in turn acting as a branch of the legislative body in doing so. Another aspect of the current day Supreme Court is that the justices are able to interpret and make precedents on the “spirit” of the constitution to keep up with the present day social climate. The Supreme Courts use of Judicial Review as established in the case Marbury V Madison, has transformed a United States ruled by Judicial Supremacy. Proponents of Article three of the constitution as it was ratified, had believed that …show more content…
The independence of the branch would allow it to grow in power without any check by the other two branches. Brutus No. 15 even draws a terrifying distinction between the courts of Britain and the proposed Supreme Court. “The judges in England, it is true, hold their offices during their good behaviour, but then their determinations are subject to correction by the house of lords; and their power is by no means so extensive as that of the proposed supreme court of the union”1. The settlers had wanted to stay far away from the tyrannical type of government they had just fled. This point by Brutus should have caused more discussion since it showed clearly that the proposed justice system lacked more of a balance than the British parliamentary system. The response by Hamilton in Federalist #78, written just two months later, defended the independence of the court. Hamilton argued that the courts isolation would actually inhibit it from attaining any harmful power. Hamilton argued that without the power of the “sword or purse”, it could not hold weight against the other branches. The courts only true power came from protecting the constitution, so it inherently could never be a poison to the thing in which it

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    And those three are the reason to prevent the government from overpower. Without them, it will lead to chaos, and nobody makes a decision. The states end up with power and create their own country. The Supreme Court should have the power of judicial review and overturn the unconstitutional federal law because it reviews the actions of the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch to see if…

    • 612 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Freedom of expression supports a new system- a republican form of government, not the monarchy rule that England had. Lee believes that England’s common law is correct and it should stay exactly how it is, but that is illogical. England has an absolute monarchy, with parliament to check their power, but a monarchy is not the same thing as a democracy which is what we have in the United States. Madison says, “In the British Government the danger of encroachments on the rights of the people is understood to be confined to the executive magistrate… but are considered as sufficient guardians of the rights of their constituents against the…

    • 798 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Marbury v. Madison showed the limits of both Congress and the Supreme Court. Marshall intended this decision to positively influence America, and it has. If Congress passed a law banning newspapers from printing information about certain political matters, the Supreme Court would have the authority to say the law violated the First Amendment (Haas). Judicial review protects the interests and rights of Americans everywhere; however, the modern form of judicial review has had deleterious effects on America. Since Marbury v. Madison, judicial review has expanded and grown into judicial superiority or supremacy.…

    • 1183 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    The Federalists opposed this position because they did not want to become allies with the French because they were pro-British. “The United States in the mean Time at Their discretion extending their settlements to any part within the said boundary line, except within the precincts or Jurisdiction of any of the said Posts” (Document B). Jay’s Treaty was signed and discussed to avoid the war with Britain. It states that the British government withdrew all of the threats against United States’ sailors. The Federalists strategy was to strengthen the economic ties with Britain.…

    • 1488 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In this instance, the court ruled that people who were being detained as suspected terrorists could not be detained without trial. This was a major blow to the government 's anti-terrorism policy which had intended to extend the period of detention without trial, for suspected terrorists, to ninety days. Partly as a result of the Belmarsh case, the government was unable to do this. The judgements of the courts in a judicial review tend to be accepted as binding by the government, as in the Belmarsh case, but as Parliament remains sovereign, it does retain the power to ignore the ruling. Although this would, in almost all cases, be very unpopular and a politically unwise decision so it is uncommon for the government to ignore the judgement of a judicial review…

    • 1144 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    “Marshall inherited a functioning Court, then, but one more potentially exposed for the institutional strides it had made and more vulnerable still because it got openly entangles in the violent partisan politics of the 1790s.” (Newmyer, 2001). This quote conveys the fact that Marshall made a rise in the Supreme Court, and the Court was out of sync with the rise of political parties. John Marshall defined roles by creating the power of judicial review in the Supreme Court from the court case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Judicial review entrenched the precedent that only the federal courts could interpret the Constitution. In the quote, “The act to establish the judicial courts of the United States authorizes the Supreme Court “to issue writs of mandamus, in the cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or a person holding office under the authority the United States”.” (Document G), it implies the “Necessary and Proper Clause” because of the establishment of the judicial courts, it becomes necessary to consider if a jurisdiction can be exercised.…

    • 702 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    - Judicial review is the power that the judiciary has to review laws passed by the states, or government regulations that could possibly conflict with the US Constitution. The Supreme Court has the original, and final right, to determine if any states’ law conflict with the Constitution. The Supreme Court also has the right to review governmental policies, and legislation. This Supreme Court’s judicial review was set into precedent by the Marbury v. Madison case, in which controversy over a “writ of mandamus” cause the court to establish its right to review under Article…

    • 804 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    Power Of Judicial Review

    • 1253 Words
    • 6 Pages

    In article 3 section 1 it says “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court” (U.S. Constitution), judicial power is the power to hear cases and interpret, enforce or nullify laws and statutes in order to render verdicts. Judicial power also extends to judicial review, which is known as the judicial branch 's biggest power. Judicial review really sums up judicial power. Because to nullify laws means to declare laws unconstitutional or not and that is what judicial review is. This is really their biggest power in the courts so that reinforces the fact that they are not too powerful.…

    • 1253 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Maier, when discussing earlier greivances over the White Pines Act, investigated why the colonists opposed this form of government intervention so much. The White Pines Act, although only a legislature that was meant to reserve all white pine trees for the Crown, still bothered colonists because it stepped into their economic and social world and allowed Parliament to make decisions. “The community’s immediate welfare was at stake, not the satisfaction of any anti-British prejudices,” was how Maier described colonial thought. Nothing in the opposition of specific interventions said that the colonists disliked Parliament or negated their power. Colonists just disagreed with where and how Parliament could impose its powers, (Greene, 28–29; Maier,…

    • 1409 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Jeffery Frieden, author of World Politics, supports this when he argues established democracies are less likely to ratify treaties because human rights are already secured through constitutional protections (Frieden). In other words, established democracies already respect human rights. Emilie M. Hafner-Burton, Political scientist professor at Princeton University, claims mature democracies and dictatorships have less reason to sign treaties because membership infringes on their sovereignty and requires them to commit resources, with few benefits (Burton). Established states feel that they have nothing to prove. They don’t have an interest in choosing to enter regimes designed to establish and monitor compliance with human rights standards because they know international legal arrangements are weak, enforcement is unlikely, and any costs of noncompliance are…

    • 959 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays