Does the Supreme Court have too much power for an unelected body PDF

Preview

Summary

Does the supreme court have too much power essay...

Description

Does the Supreme Court have too much power for an unelected body? The supreme court is one of the three bodies of the government, and is not elected by the public. They have significant roles, of ruling cases constitutional and unconstitutional which can sometimes change and shape the US society, in just the hands of 9 justices. Some may say this is undemocratic or gives them too much power as they are unelected and so therefore do not have a mandate from the public to make such decisions. However, I believe that they may have significant power but not necessarily too much power, as it can act as a check on the rest of the government or bring about positive changes. One of the ways that the Supreme Court has too much power is that some of is self-given. Under Marbury v. Madison, chief justice Marshall established the power of court to declare acts of Congress, the president or legislation as unconstitutional. Marbury v Madison is important to show that this power was self-given and not by an act of Congress, so by allowing themselves to make decisions on acts that links to the constitution shows that they had too much power in the first place to effectively make this another supreme court power and role. The ruling of actions and laws as unconstitutional gives them to power to go against the actions of elected bodies, who have been elected by the public and therefore have the mandate to make such laws. By striking down laws and acts that have been made democratically by an elected body gives them too much power as by being an unelected body they are able to change and reshape the framework of the US fundamental principles, and can be seen has undemocratic as they do not have a mandate to make significant changes or go against the elected bodies. However, the Supreme Court has no initiative power so cannot act biased about what they wish to strike as unconstitutional, but must wait for a case to come up. By waiting for a case to come them by a member of the public, gives them permission to act on a case, and perhaps giving them a mandate to do so. This means that they do not have too much power as they are acting upon their role of making decisions about cases that come to them, if the Supreme Court were to initiate cases then this would be over stepping their power. So, while they are powerful in striking actions constitutional or unconstitutional, it does not mean they are too powerful, especially because the cases come to them from members of the public, giving them some mandate to act on case, despite being unelected. The Supreme court has a quasi-legislative power. The vagueness of the constitution allows for interpretation, and it can be interpreted in different ways by many ways which can have similar effects of legislation. Obergefell v Hodges, allowed same sex marriage on a national scale, which has been a controversial issue for many years but this case created a large change in law and US society on a national scale and was actioned straight away. This had the effect as if legislation was passed as now all states must accept same sex marriage and it was legalized. It can be argued that this gave the Supreme court too much power for an unelected body, as a controversial issue was decided just in the hands of 9 justices who do not represent any group of people specifically or regions and by being an unelected, their mandate to make such a large decision is weak, overstepping their power as an unelected body. Their ability to decide cases that can have similar effects of legislation, is also overstepping their power as the power of legislation is under Congress, who are elected by

Bansi Mehta

the people, however the Supreme court can indirectly have this power whilst not being elected, giving them too much power for an unelected body. However, the constitution needs to be a living constitution, and the founding fathers intended for the Supreme Court to protect the rights and liberties of the people, which they continue to do. Many cases such as Snyder v Phelps, US v Windsor, Obergefell v Hodges, has protected the rights of the people following the bill of rights. An important landmark case that sparked social change in the US, was the Brown v Topeka case, which ended segregation in schools, which enhanced civil rights, bringing about more social change and movement in the USA. This is important as the Supreme Court is fulfilling its role as protecting the civil rights and liberties of the people and also allowing the constitution to be a ‘living constitution’, meaning it allows it the fundamental principles of the US to change with society. The founding fathers may not have realized such social issues would come up in the future so the Supreme Court can utilize what is already written in the constitution to interpret to continue protecting the rights of the US people. Therefore, the Supreme court is not too powerful as they are not overstepping their power, but they still have some power by fulfilling their role of protecting civil rights and liberties, despite being unelected. Another significant reason why the judges being unelected gives them too much power is that they do not represent specific groups of people but decided on decisions by their own views, which can make significant changes in society just in the hands of 9 people. Being unelected, they do not have the responsibility to represent specific constituents, unlike senators and representatives. Instead they must try to represent the whole of society, which can be extremely hard to interpret so this can lead to justices voting on cases on what they personally believe. Their actions may not represent a majority ad they may not have a connection with the people compared to elected bodies. Being unelected and not representing the people but yet making key decisions can be undemocratic as they do not directly need to represent their constituents and controversial issues are in the hand of 9 justice’s views, giving them too much power for an unelected body. However, Congress and the president already tend to represent the majority views, due to many reasons such as reelection and also to represent the most people, but can tend to miss out on the minorities. The supreme court can be a balance to this, and are able to represent the minority views which can be ignored in elected chambers. The supreme court is also not bound to reelection as they have tenure, so they do not need to worry about deciding on issues to ensure the public supports them to be reelected. The founding fathers worried about the tyranny of majority, so by the Supreme Court being able to represent the minorities in some cases, it can bring about social change and ensuring civil liberties and rights are protected for everyone; the majority and the minorities. Therefore, the Supreme court do not have too much power by being unrepresentative, as they are able to give a fair balance and continue to fulfill their role of still protecting every citizens rights. Lastly, another issue on why the Supreme Court is too powerful is that they are the main body that checks on the power of the other two bodies of government, but they do not check on the Supreme court or easily be able to limit their power. Neither of the two other bodies, Congress and Executive, can strike down acts of the supreme court unconstitutional, so the Supreme court can overstep their power but the elected and democratic bodies

Bansi Mehta

cannot veto their rulings, which can give the Supreme court too much power as there is barely much threat when they overstep their power. Congress can impeach a justice, but only by doing something illegal and not by what they decided on an issue – so this means they cannot impeach a justice on their actions and the way they vote on a case, limiting how much they can check on them. The supreme court having the ability to check on Congress and the Executive, elected bodies, but having very limited checks on themselves, can mean they have the opportunity to overstep their power, or if they do, there is very limited checks on them or veto power, giving them too much power for an unelected body. However, there still are some checks on them as they are being appointed. The president nominates someone to be a judge and the senate confirms it. If either bodies believe the nominee does not have the qualifications to be in the Supreme court they can withdraw the candidate or vote against them. The Senate has rejected 12 nominations, giving the elected bodies power to choose who becomes a justice, an initial check on them and their beliefs. The 1987 nomination by Raegan on Robert Bork, was defeated as the Senate believed he didn’t have the qualifications and Bush withdrew Harriet Miers. The ABA rating also assesses that the nominees are qualified, and one of the justices have been rated ‘qualified’ and the other eight justices have been rated ‘well qualified’, this is important as it means that they have been checked on before they entered the supreme court, to ensure they don’t overstep their power. As the justices have gone through this process with the support of the senate and the president, it effectively allows their power to be devolved from an elected body, which means they are not too powerful as their power has been confirmed by the democratic elected bodies. There are also cases of judicial restraint, limiting the supreme courts power. In the Roberts court, chief justice Robert believes in looking and deciding on narrow cases rather than always looking at wide controversial issues regularly so that they do not always make important and influencial decisions when being unelected, as he acknowledges that the politicians who have been elected should have more power than the judges. This shows that the supreme court does acknowledge they are unelected and take this in consideration when looking at case, making sure they do not overstep their power. This consideration and narrowing of cases shows that they do not have too much power for an unelected body. In conclusion, I believe that the Supreme court does have significant power, but not too much power, they do not overstep their power regularly but fulfill their role of protecting the rights of people. The founding father intended that the supreme court would be a check on the elected bodies, to ensure that they don’t overstep their power, and also to protect the civil rights and liberties of the people, which is what the supreme court do, it may look powerful but that is their role and they fulfill it. If their role is powerful, and if they don’t overstep it, this does not mean they are too powerful. Being an unelected body can also be a good and fair balance as they don’t act politically and represent minorities, which still fulfills their function and power.

Bansi Mehta...