The Supreme Court and Judicial Review

Early this year our class discussed the constitution and how it should be interpreted. Should legislation and the government be required to follow the strict meaning of the constitution or should it follow the general idea’s the constitution was designed to protect. The constitution does not go into great detail on the specific jobs of the Supreme Court. It states that terms are lifelong and the specific cases they must deal with, however their role in upholding the constitution is never explicitly stated. Whether the Founding Fathers intended for Judicial Review, distinguishing state and federal laws to follow the constitution, to be practiced by the Supreme Court is unclear and often debated.

One common example of the debate between when to follow the constitution verbatim and when to allow for interpretation is in the argument for firearm regulations. Is it denying the public their rights to bear arms, given by the second amendment by regulating guns, or was there a different purpose intended due to the cultural difference between now and when the constitution was written. Often times the Supreme Court has been forced to make this distinction. Cases include Roe v Wade, which handled abortion, and Brown v The Board of Education, which tried to end the separate but equal ruling previously made by the court. A recent case on the table for the court is that known as, Masterpiece Cake Shop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

This recent trial involves a gay couple who requested a cake for their wedding from the baker, Jack Phillips, who denied due to his religious beliefs. The Christian group, Alliance Defending Freedom, that is representing Mr. Phillips has insisted that “The government can no more force Phillips to speak those messages with his lips than to express them through his art” (New York Times). They are implying that by creating a cake for the wedding, Phillips would be supporting the marriage itself and that is something he cannot be required to do under the first amendment. Gay rights groups argue however that by turning away the couple, Phillips has violated the public accommodations law in Colorado that requires equal service no matter someone’s, “disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry” (Washington Post). There is also an argument that refusing to make the cake was undermining the couple’s right to marriage given by the Supreme Court decision made in 2015 to make same sex marriage legal.

Either way the Supreme Court must decide which side has better standing as it relates to what upholds the constitution and its values. Whether this be the first amendment or other legislation that has been passed as society progresses and culture changes with an interpreted meaning of the constitution. It is expected they will come to a ruling in early 2018. Does the Supreme Court have the right to make such decisions and if so, how far should they be allowed to interpret the written words of the constitution when it comes to new legislative decisions?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-asked-if-bakers-case-protects-religious-rights-or-illegal-discrimination/2017/12/04/1a56624e-d6d8-11e7-95bf-df7c19270879_story.html?utm_term=.e67f780f6e9a

New York Times

3 Responses to "The Supreme Court and Judicial Review"

Diego Rayas says:

December 4, 2017 at 10:50 pm

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, The “Gay Wedding Cake Case” as it has been referred to before is one in which there may actually be more than a simple reading of the Constitution for, but beyond that, there may also have to be an analysis of the system that is currently in place when looking at the levels of power in the government. We can begin by looking at the state in which this is taking place. Colorado does have a public accommodations law that is in place to protect those under a protected class, such as marital and sexual orientation status, from discrimination. According to US Code § 12181, a bakery is defined as a public accommodation, and as such, the the rights of the gay couple should be protected. However, the Constitution defends the rights to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. The argument of Mr. Phillips is that if the government forces him to bake this cake, then the government has in turn forced him to violate his religious ideals, thereby violating his right to religious freedom, as well as his right to freedom of expression by forcing him to make this cake. This pits the laws of the State of Colorado against the Constitution of the United States. As stated in Article VI of the Constitution, in the battle between the two, the freedoms protected in the Constitution are considered above the laws of the state. A defense for Phillips is that he did not explicitly deny the couple because they themselves were gay, but because the cake was for a gay wedding. He denied the event instead of the people. By forcing him to oblige to the couple, it could also potentially force him to oblige to other, more unwanted parties. If he has to bake a cake for a gay wedding, then why shouldn’t he also be forced to bake a cake for an anti-gay event, something that Phillips himself states that he has already denied service to. Phillips has even denied baking Halloween and demon themed cakes. Even in the case of a protected classes, would Philipps be forced to make a cake for an “anti-white” rally if there ever was one create by a black group, or would his denial be considered discrimination?
The overall problem presented in this case is not simply a religious man versus a gay couple, but instead it is a conflict that will determine whether or not a person’s religious freedom can be waived for the sake of equality. No matter which side wins, there will be precedents set that will have impact on both current and future situations when dealing with religious freedom. One major example can be seen in the Bon Secours Medical Group. They are a Catholic Medical Group who runs some nearby hospitals such as St. Mary’s and St. Francis. As a part of their faith based practices, they do not perform abortions, and are very averse to giving birth control. If this case is ruled against religious freedom, will this eventually begin affecting them, and other similar groups? There is also the case of Muslim bakeries refusing to service a gay wedding, as recorded by Steven Crowder. To some degree, Phillips has experienced not the long winded and slow moving process of government punishment, but instead the swift reaction and punishment of the free market, as he has had to lay off employees and has seen a drop in business. Even five years after the initial incident, the ruling on this case will form a precedent for businesses and people for years to come. Will the rights of those who have been persecuted and discriminated against be leveled against the acts of the faithful, or will the Freedom of Religion found in the Constitution trump the rights of those in a minority group? As someone who values the rights of the private industry, I can understand the point that Phillips is trying to make. At the same time, I also believe that everyone is entitled to certain rights, but whether it’s Philip’s rights or the couple’s rights, that will be up the the Supreme Court to decide.
Christopher Barry says:

December 5, 2017 at 1:06 am

The pending Supreme Court Case Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission raises an intriguing conflict between principles under the United States Constitution. The Constitutional question posed is whether freedom of religion, or more generally freedom of speech, allows a person to essentially discriminate. It is a battle within the First Amendment and the Constitution’s value. Essentially, the Court will be deciding between whether religious freedom and freedom of speech supersedes equality and preventing discrimination. To decide this, the Supreme Court Justices are going have to revisit the debate of a ‘living’ Constitution or the Founders’ Constitution.
The case presents another, more conceptional issue, how should the Supreme Court as well as the United States government deal with issues, groups, and other areas in which the Founders did not perceive. Combined with the changing public opinion and interpretation of values, the Supreme Court is once again in the center of deciding how the Court itself and the Constitution will be and whether or not the Constitution should have a ‘living’ interpretation or be based on the Founders’ intent. As set up and intended by the Founders, the Supreme Court was supposed to be unwavering with judges remaining in Court despite changes in both the House, Senate, and Presidency. This was done in order to keep Justices above the political fray as well as keep interpretations of the Constitution consistent. However, the Constitution does have a procedure for what happen when judges leave the bench. As a result, it means that as Justices change so do interpretations. Interpretation changes with generation, supporting the concept of a ‘living’ Constitution, specifically and especially for the Supreme Court and their interpretations. I would argue that, especially in regards to this case and issues in which the Founders did not have in mind, the ‘spirit of the law,’ or Constitution, would have to be followed.
Brittney Morris says:

December 7, 2017 at 11:40 pm

Alyssa, your post was really interesting. I had never thought about the supreme courts involvement in the debate on guns. I did not think of the debate being about culture, I always assumed it was about safety. But the culture aspect is really interesting and does in fact go hand in hand with the issue of safety. Our culture is split much like our political system, some are strongly against guns while others believe they are so fundamental to their way of life and that taking their guns away would be depriving them of an important aspect of their life. So where do you draw the line between ensuring the rights of people and meeting the societal and cultural expectations of safety? Your second topic was also intriguing. I find it hard to justify government intervention in private companies, public is one thing, but private is where I personally draw the line. Private companies should not be subject to governmental restriction that infringe on their rights as a private company. Although it only seems right to ensure all people are treated equal regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, I think that enforcement can only be pushed so far. I believe the distinction between public and private is where the Supreme Court is able to implement their decisions regarding the constitution. Though I am sure others will have different beliefs.

Comments are closed.