The Most Powerful Branch – Does Government Work?

Chapter 9 examines the U.S. Court System. It touches upon numerous issues associated with the judicial branch. It describes a few of its most influential cases as well as discussing the courts role in policy. The text notes the relatively small amount of information the constitution gives in Article III about the branch. The constitutions describes the judicial branch as having the power to create courts, it outlines those under the jurisdiction of the courts, and speaks to how to handle treason, as well as mentioning a few other powers. However, the majority of the courts duty is left out. Without direction the courts fell to its appointed judges to carve out their powers. The United States has seen the Supreme Court grow in activity greatly since its beginning. The courts has also ruled upon landmark controversial decisions including segregation in Brown v. Board of Education, abortion in Roe v. Wade, and gay marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges. The judicial branch has gathered more and more power which has the potential to encroach upon our democratic processes.

In April this year Trump geared up to nominate Neil Gorsuch as an associate justice, and the event felt to be one of the most influential political decisions for the past decade. Lifelong positions poise these judges to be terribly significant and, they’re nominations are solely through the presidency. These judicial appointments allow for presidents to make lasting effects on policy, even when they’re terms have long run their course. Decisions of that magnitude may be better suited to election, or perhaps given term limits.

The courts have gradually become more and more judicially active, increasing their power by affecting policy making. John Marshall established judicial review, endowing the supreme court with the ability to interpret the constitution and find laws unconstitutional. Judicial review’s use has varied with the court, but has steadily been increasing in use. The Supreme Court has also established its ability to overturn its previous decisions, most notably seen in the case of Brown v. Board of Education when the Warren Court overturned the ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson. This poses a danger in the ephemerality of these courts. As members of the Supreme Court are changed, we can see courts undo policy that people primarily agree with posing a danger to the people, when changes like that should be left to congress. These federal courts have grown a close connection to policymaking. One could argue that the federal courts should only be deciders of disputes, however, these decisions can commit to long standing policy.

While the Judicial Branch was created to be equal to the other two, these courts have established themselves in a position where if they do not remain passive, they have the opportunity to impose thoroughly on the other two. Congress should establish itself stronger as the primary decider of landmark decisions as the constitution intends it. If changes are not enacted these federal courts could have the opportunity to disrupt our democracy.

Spencer Yacos says:

December 6, 2017 at 9:56 pm

The judicial branch has been very active all the way back to, as you stated, John Marshall. I believe using the founding father’s intentions as a guideline is a flawed argument. As we’ve extensively discussed in class, the country as a whole has changed and shifted far beyond our Founding Father’s original vision. Like the justices themselves who advocate for an elastic, evolving constitution, we ourselves must continually re-evaluate how the three branches of government interact with one another. Using your argument, you could say that Congress is the weakest of the three branches right now. However, they also have the lowest approval rating of the three branches and stories of their failure to get anything done are always in the news. Maybe Congress itself had power taken away because it is less effectual than the other two branches?

Daniel Bonaventura says:

December 7, 2017 at 5:01 pm

I respectfully disagree with your point about how Judicial appointments should be up to votes or subject to term limits. First off, public elections could not be made for these positions. While citizens elect presidents and congressmen based of their political ideology, their character and their credibility, normal citizens are not qualified to elect someone to life whose position is entirely based on their merit causing voters to have a lack of knowledge on what makes a good judge. As far as your point that these judges should be possibly subject to terms, this would also be ineffective. If the president were to still choose them under term limits, this would actually give the president more power. Under this system the judge would have to comply to a certain degree with the wishes of the president or face the fear of not being reelected. Eve a system where the people vote for these judges to serve set terms would not work. If this were to happen judges would have to waste time campaigning and presenting a political sway instead of focusing on the important things. For these reasons, our current court setup seems to be the only option.