Is The US Supreme Court Too Powerful?

Is the United States Supreme Court too powerful? There has been an unending debate on the topic that whether or not the Supreme Court of the United States is too powerful. Before coming to any conclusion regarding the same, it will be appropriate to have a look at the definition of the Supreme Court. The Merriam- Websters Dictionary of law defines the Supreme Court as being the highest court within the judicial branch of the US government, whose activities is as a court of last resort. The emphasis on the two phrases highest court and the court of last resort itself explains the stature of the appellate body. Arguments against the Supreme Court Critics have argued that the notion that the Supreme Court does have the powers in excess. The arguments that in a democratic state like the US, where the representatives of the people, elected by them, have the powers to formulate and articulate laws and are the most powerful, giving a body which is appointed supreme powers is itself undemocratic. The powers of the appointed judiciary to trample over the officials elected by the people to rule them and the right of the court to take its own course, setting their own timelines and guidelines without much accountability of compliance over their decision making is baffling(McKeever, 1995). Critics believe that the yardstick to whether a being is more powerful than intended is simply observing when an already powerful body makes regulations to give it more powers. The most striking example of the exemplary powers the Supreme Court has is evident in the recent cases where the Supreme Court established it powers to declare laws unconstitutional (Hodder-Williams, 1992), doing away with the system of checks and balances. Critics argue that in a democratic nation no independent body can be given the powers to change the constitutional

and fundamental laws. It is only the people of the nation who have the powers to bring about a change in the constitution and fundamental laws governing the nation through electing representatives by means of a democratic process to devise such laws. There have been a string of controversies lately related to the judgments and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. There have been numerous instances of the appellate body going overboard and increasing the span of their jurisdiction which has in turn come into direct conflict with the executive powers of the elected representatives. The recent instances of opposition parties playing politics and exerting pressure on the President of the US, Barack Obama, who was appointing a new judge, recently Judge Sonia Sotomayor, and keeping her out of the Supreme Court for the reason that the opposition Congress considered the judge to be more liberal in her views. President Roosevelt too tried to pass a law that will give him the powers to appoint a new judge as soon as the age of the presiding judge reaches 70, for the purpose of taking political favors in judgments passed by the Supreme Court. Critics believe that the average American citizens have lost their ability to influence laws in a nation where both the federal government and the federal judges have become too powerful. Critics also relate their criticism to the increasing powers of the Supreme Court in cases of Judicial Activism lately. The court has started playing a central role in governance which is not what it was intended to do. The supreme court intervened in the bankruptcy proceeding of the ailing car manufacturer Chrysler Corporation in the year 2009, though the power used were excessive in nature, the intervention was justified as it was meant to check the powers exerted by the executive branch. Critics believe that the unreviewable powers of the Supreme Court might lead to the court self engaging itself into matters unrelated or outside its jurisdiction.

Strong admission of the excessive powers vested with the Supreme Court comes from none other than a Supreme Court Justice, Antonio Scalia who stated that the Court is too powerful and it defies the intent of the constitution of U.S. He also lashed out at the judges who expanded the meaning of the constitution beyond what the authors originally intended based on assumptions of executive intent involving future unforeseen circumstances. The pro activeness of the Supreme Court to override congressional decisions is certainly more powers with itself than was intended by the framers of the U.S. constitution. While the appointment of the judges in the Supreme Court is intended to be un-political, the process of appointments is not free of politics. Time and again the appointments of the judges have been made by the president keeping in mind the alignment of the social and judicial outlook of the judge with that of the president. Arguments in favor of the Supreme Court The arguments in favor of the Supreme Court state that the Court is well within its jurisdiction when deliberating on any issue related to national interest. The power of judicial review has not been bestowed to the Supreme Court by the constitution, nor does the constitution explicitly prevent it. The judicial review pertains to the power of the appellate court to review constitutionality of an issue of treaty, or to review a regulation for consistency with a treaty or the constitution itself. The proponents of the Supreme Courts powers state that it cannot be supposed that the constitution of United States empowers the representatives elected by the constituents to substitute their will upon that of the constituents (McDowell, 2007). Therefore it is best to suppose that the judiciary was created as an intermediary body between the people and the legislature, for the purpose of the latter within their constitutional limits. The courts are within their constitutional limits in matters pertaining to the interpretation of the law. Thus the interpretational of law is a province of the Supreme Court (Scalia,

1997). Therefore it is on the judiciary to ascertain the meaning of the constitution including the interpretation of the acts or law made by the legislative body. Judicial review is not an established part of the Constitution in the United States, but there are critics who believe that judicial review is unconstitutional. There criticism is based on the Constitution not giving powers of judicial review explicitly to the Supreme Court. The Constitution Article III state that the judicial powers of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court and other inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Constitution Article also states that the judicial powers shall extend themselves to all such cases in law and equity arising under the constitution and the laws of the United States and the treaties will be made under their authority. The constitution gave the Supreme court absolute powers of original jurisdiction in all cases affecting the legislators, diplomats , ambassadors, public ministers and those in which State is a party, and an appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in all the other cases. The importance and the powers vested with the Supreme Court can be validated by the extent of national judicial systems reliance on the powers of the Supreme Court in defining the true meanings and operations of the words and letters that make the law. Though the decisions by the court are not flawless and times and again the decisions have been rectified as mistakes and overturned, the power of the Supreme Courts to take a final decision on any subject pertaining to national interest, or constitutionality is desired for. Though, the Supreme Court can been seen as an anomaly by the critics in the system of electoral accountability, and that they are neither accountable nor answerable to the electorate, the constitution was never designed to give complete dominance to the majority. The Supreme Court was not intended to be representative (OBrien, 2005). The idea of an

undemocratic court appeals to the citizens who are a victim of widespread public distrust of politicians and want the spirit and meaning of the constitution protected. The interests of the public are best served by a body that is undemocratic and is uninfluenced by the pressure and opinions of the majority. The intent of the people (i.e. the constitution) must be preferred over the intention of the agent (i.e. politicians). The Supreme Court has been given original as well as appellate jurisdiction by the Constitution and the Congress respectively. These provide the necessary powers to the Congress in deciding the matters, issues or cases that will be heard by the appellate court. The power of the court to determine the meaning of the law made by the legislative provides the legislative the opportunity to restate the law in more unambiguous terms. It is a tedious process of amending the laws once passed as it needs two thirds of the majority of the house to pass the amendment. The judicial history contains only four decisions of the Supreme Court to have been overturned by the legislative in total till now. It is the Congress which still has the powers of for impeachment of the judges and scrutiny. Although the powers of the Congress is clearly high and in cases even enough to override the rulings of the court, such powers when executed a highly unpopular with the people. It is the popularity of the courts with the people which gives the advantage to the Court (OBrien, 2005). The implementation of the decisions of the court lies with the executive branch of the government. In certain cases the president has issued directives for execution of the judicial decision. The power and independence of the Supreme Court in the United States has been grossly overstated. Though neither the congress nor the executives have a great deal of power to overrule the Supreme Court, it is important they follow the principle of judicial self restraint, ensuring that their interference does not result in their

unpopularity. The Courts too, despite being not limited by the precedents, have a strong inclination t follow the precedents in similar judgments. Conclusion According to Hamilton (1788), the judiciary neither force nor will, but only judgment and hence is the weakest among the three departments of power. The question of whether or not the Supreme Court of the United States is vested with too much power can best be answered in the light of the opinions and concerns for and against the proponents of the supremacy of the Supreme Court. While the critics are of stern opinion that the powers vested with the Supreme Court undermine the democratic essence of the constitution of the United States, as the ultimate power in the electoral democracy needs to be vested with the elected representatives of the people. On the other hand the proponents of the Supreme court instill that the intention of creation of the judiciary was not to create a representative body but it is best to propose that the intention was to create an intermediary body between the powerful elected executives and the people to protect the constitutional rights bestowed to the people by the Constitution. The proponents of the Supreme Court emphasize that it is a necessary body with powers and jurisdiction selected by an undemocratic procedure to protect the fundamental rights of the minorities. The question on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and that on the constitutionality of the judicial review process are contentious with the critics saying that the Constitution does not state explicitly that the Supreme Court has the powers of a judicial review of the constitutionality of the legislations enacted by the politicians. The mere absence of the explicit illustration within the Constitution does not however undermine the importance of the court in deciding the meaning and interpretation of the constitution and as a body that protects the true intent and spirit of the Constitution. There are checks and balances to limit the powers of the Supreme Court by way of executive

powers to overrule or amend the decisions of the Supreme Court. However, the courts derive power from the support and popularity they enjoy with the people in large in spite of having almost equal powers as with the Congress. Reference Hamilton, A. (1788), Federalist 78 Hodder-Williams, R. (1992), Six Definitions of Political and the US Supreme Court, British Journal of Political Science 22, 1: 1-20 McDowell, G.L. (2007), The War for the Constitution, Wall Street Journal, Oct 23 McKeever, R. (1995), Raw Judicial Power? The Supreme Court and American Society OBrien, D. (2005), Storm Center: The Supreme Court in American Politics, Seventh Edition Scalia, A. (1997), A matter of interpretation: federal courts and the law: an essay Does the United States Supreme Court has too much power, UA Political Science retrieved on 3rd April, 2012 from http://psc101.wetpaint.com/page/34.