Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Evaluate the Extent to which the Supreme Court is an Imperial Judiciary -…
Evaluate the Extent to which the Supreme Court is an Imperial Judiciary
Extent of the Court's Power: Judicial Activism
Imperial
Philosophy in which judges make bold policy decisions, even charting new constitutional ground
Advocates of this approach emphasize that the courts can correct pressing needs, especially those unmet by the majoritarian political process
Court has made new laws: obergefell 2015 - legalises same sex marriage and Roe vs Wade 1976 legalises abortion
Can be seen as quasi-legislative body - same effect as a law passed by congress Strict constructionists and conservatives would argue these policies have a tenuous basis in the constitution - thus has a lot of power
Court sees itself as equal to other branches
Seen with Warren court in the 50s when tried to move forward with African American civil rights
Not Imperial
Lose constructionists and liberals argue Courts job to intervene and strike down legislation to protect rights
Principle of stare decisis still widely followed
Bound by previous court decisions which acts as an unofficial check
Previous case law limits freedom to act as are bound to follow it in future decisions
Court recognises it is unelected and therefore unaccounted notable - differential to other bodies
More likely to accept actions of elected officials
Can be seen with Sebelius case of 2012 - right of gov to impose income tax upheld in aca - upholds existing policy and supports the exec - therefore extent of power limited
Basis of the Court's Power: Laid Out in the Constitution
Imperial
Constitution states should be a Supreme Court - vague so more latitude in applying personal views when interpreting cons
This vagueness magnifies it's power of judicial review
Set up with separation of powers - court independent from other branches
Allows it to be protected from external pressures and make its own judgment
Security of tenure - can make any decision without fear of being sacked or losing favour
Can exert vast power without fear of the consequence
Not Imperial
Congress has power of impeachment and mere great can cause justices to resign
Not very common however so limited significance. Only one justice has been impeached - Samuel chase in 1804
Decisions can be overturned by a cons amendment however limited as Amendment process makes it hard to overturn courts decisions - only done once with the Chisholm vs Georgia case of 1793 which was overridden by the 11th amendment
Power of the Court Itself: Judicial Review
Imperial
The power of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional
Willingness of justices to strike down state and federal laws would suggest they are arbiters over wide range of policy
Willing to overrule elected branches of gov despite being unelected and thus unaccountable itself
Can overrule laws even if they have widespread political support - voters cannot even influence decisions and no other institution can do this due to the fact they are elected
Power of review not mentioned in constitution - has gained this power itself in Marbury vs Madison case 1803
Only one constitutional amendment made to undue a courts decision - lack of checks mean court can exercise power with few restrictions
Not Imperial
Has no enforcement power - still needs Congress in order to make the laws to enforce the decisions made by the court
Although court made segregation unconstitutional was still carried out as congress didn't enforce anti segregation laws until later
Also cannot initiate cases itself - must wait for a case to be appealed to it so has limited grounds on which policies it can review