Supreme Court Rulings: Law Or Not?

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the US judicial system, and its rulings carry significant weight in shaping American history and society. The Court's primary role is to interpret and apply the law in legal disputes, ensuring laws comply with the Constitution. While the Court does not create laws, its interpretations can alter how existing laws are understood and applied. This power of judicial review allows the Court to declare acts of Congress or the Executive unconstitutional, safeguarding civil rights and liberties and upholding the separation of powers. The Court's rulings can bestow or rescind rights, profoundly impacting societal norms and politics. The Court's decisions are final and binding, with lower courts obligated to follow its precedents. The Supreme Court's independence and objectivity are crucial for maintaining public confidence and the rule of law.

The Supreme Court's role in interpreting the law

The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in interpreting the law within the United States' constitutional system of government. As the highest court in the land, it is the final arbiter of legal disputes, with its rulings shaping American history and contemporary society. The Court's interpretation of the law can alter how laws are understood and applied, or even deem them unconstitutional.

The methods used to interpret the law can vary, and include approaches such as balancing, doctrinalism, originalism, moral reasoning, prudentialism, and strict constructionism. Balancing involves weighing competing interests or rights, while doctrinalism considers how the Court's own jurisprudence has shaped the Constitution. Originalism seeks to apply the original meaning of constitutional provisions in their historical context, and moral reasoning argues that the Court should consider the moral concepts underpinning the Constitution. Prudentialism encourages a limited role for the Court, while strict constructionism interprets the text of the law as written, without drawing inferences.

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the law is not without controversy. Some critics argue that the Court "makes law" by interpreting the Constitution in a way that reflects the justices' ideological leanings. Others defend the Court's role, stating that if the law were easy to interpret, there would be no need for the Court to decide cases. Ultimately, the Court's legitimacy comes from public confidence in the independence, objectivity, and fairness of its decisions.

The power to declare acts in violation of the Constitution

Article III of the U.S. Constitution outlines the duties and powers of the judicial branch but does not explicitly mention judicial review. However, in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court asserted its authority to review the actions of the other branches of government and determine their constitutionality. Chief Justice Marshall famously stated, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is."

The Supreme Court's power to declare acts in violation of the Constitution is not limited to federal laws but extends to executive actions, such as treaties and executive orders, as well as state and local laws. This power ensures that no law or action can contradict the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.

One notable example of the Supreme Court's power to declare acts in violation of the Constitution is seen in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966). In this case, the Court struck down a Virginia law requiring voters to pay a $1.50 poll tax, ruling that it violated the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. The Court affirmed that voting is a fundamental right that should be accessible to all citizens, regardless of their economic status.

Another case illustrating this power is Ladue v. Gilleo (1994), where the Supreme Court invalidated a city ordinance prohibiting yard signs. The Court found that the ordinance infringed on the 1st Amendment right to free speech, as yard signs are a traditional avenue for individuals to express their personal political views.

Through its power to declare acts in violation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court plays a crucial role in safeguarding the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, ensuring that no law or action can supersede the nation's founding document.

The independence of the judiciary

The US Constitution establishes the federal judiciary, and the judicial power of the US is vested in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the judicial system, making it the ultimate court of last resort. Supreme Court decisions represent the final say regarding the interpretation of the law.

Additionally, federal judges can only be removed through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate. This process acts as a safeguard against arbitrary removal, further reinforcing the independence of the judiciary.

The Supreme Court's independence is also reflected in its discretionary power to decide whether to hear a case. While it receives thousands of petitions for a writ of certiorari each year, it only grants a small fraction of them. This discretion allows the Court to focus on cases with significant legal or constitutional issues, further solidifying its role as the final arbiter of challenging disputes.

The Supreme Court's legitimacy as the final arbiter of difficult disputes stems not only from legal expertise but also from public confidence in the independence, objectivity, and fairness of its decisions. This independence is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the judiciary and ensuring that the law is applied without political bias or influence.

In conclusion, the independence of the judiciary, specifically the Supreme Court, is a cornerstone of the US legal system. The Constitution, along with various procedural safeguards, protects this independence. This independence is essential for upholding the rule of law, protecting civil rights and liberties, and ensuring that the changing views of the majority do not undermine the fundamental values common to all Americans.

The impact of Supreme Court decisions on society

The rulings of the Supreme Court have a significant impact on society. As the highest court in the land, its decisions can alter how laws are interpreted and even deem them unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's rulings can either bestow or rescind rights, thereby altering the societal status quo.

The Supreme Court's rulings can have a profound impact on social, political, and economic issues. For instance, the Court's recent decision to overturn Roe v. Wade ended nearly 50 years of the constitutional right to abortion, shifting the decision-making power to individual states. This ruling has had a significant impact on women's rights, privacy, and sexual freedom.

The Supreme Court also plays a crucial role in shaping healthcare policy, especially when there is gridlock in Congress. For example, the Court's rulings on the Affordable Care Act have had a substantial influence on the healthcare services Americans receive and how they are paid for.

Additionally, the Supreme Court's decisions can affect voting rights, free speech, and partisan gerrymandering. These rulings can have far-reaching consequences for the political landscape and the fairness of elections.

The Court's rulings can also impact the relationship between states and the federal government. When the Supreme Court interprets and applies the law in legal disputes, it helps to maintain the Constitutional structure and address tensions between states and the federal government.

The Supreme Court's decisions are meant to be apolitical. However, the public's perception of these decisions can significantly influence the Court's legitimacy. If the public reaction is decidedly negative, the Court may suffer a loss of esteem and legitimacy, which is crucial to its constitutional power.

The process of appointing Supreme Court justices

• The President nominates a candidate to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The President typically consults with Senators before announcing the nomination.
• The nomination is sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration.
• The Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on the nominee. This process usually takes about a month to collect and review records from the FBI and other sources about the nominee.
• During the hearings, witnesses who support and oppose the nomination present their views, and Senators question the nominee on their qualifications, judgment, and philosophy.
• The Judiciary Committee then votes on the nomination and sends its recommendation (confirmation, rejection, or no recommendation) to the full Senate.
• The full Senate debates the nomination. Since April 2017, the Senate rules require a simple majority of 51 votes to end the debate, lowering from the previously required 3/5 majority or 60 votes.
• After the debate ends, the Senate votes on the nomination. A simple majority of the Senators present and voting is needed for confirmation. In the case of a tie, the Vice President, who also presides over the Senate, casts the deciding vote.

Once a nominee is confirmed by the Senate, they are appointed to the Supreme Court. All federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, must take an oath of allegiance to the Constitution before assuming office.

Frequently asked questions