This paper analyzes the ways in which the Supreme Court's function has transformed, its current structure, and the issues that presently surround the Court. In order to maintain freedom and prosperity for the American people, the founding fathers explicitly divided up government responsibilities in the Constitution. A separation of power ensures protection against tyranny. The writers of the Constitution set up the Supreme Court to lead the Judiciary, the third and weakest branch of the government, and to direct lower, federal courts when necessary. Throughout time, various Court rulings have transitioned the Court's jurisdiction. Today, the Court interprets the Constitution, leads the federal court system, and directs state courts on federal matters.
[...] With the capability to override state courts on federal issues, the Supreme Court clearly established itself as the true power of the judicial branch. Although the Supreme Court had always been the highest court, it was never before so unreachable by all other courts. State courts previously had possessed great power that no longer would be solely granted to them. The Court began to gain new power and enlarge its jurisdiction with each new case. Present Jurisdiction The Supreme Court maintains the powers outlined in the Constitution, granted by past Court decisions, and agreed upon by the United States Congress. [...]
[...] The Supreme Court and the ways in which it exercises power is a true issue only because many hold the Court to a higher standard than the other branches of the government. Recommendations The Supreme Court, as a component of the government, performs fairly well. However, if the Court wishes to more fully separate itself from the executive and legislative powers, the Court can more seriously pursue a state of true judicial independence. Justices can either voluntarily refrain themselves better, or—on a more permanent note—could propose strict guidelines to be legally implemented regarding the conduct of Court justices. [...]
[...] Concerns Judicial Activism/Judicial Conservatism Based on their different perspectives of the Supreme Court and its role in the government, some people feel the Court should be more involved in social change (the idea of activism), and some people feel the Court should be less involved (the idea of conservatism). After President Clinton's judicial appointments, “Conservative groups and some Republican lawmakers [have charged] that many federal judges are ‘judicial activists' who issue liberal rulings based on their personal views rather than the (Jost, 1998). [...]
[...] Balances The Supreme Court's primary ability to balance power within the government is the right of judicial review—the ability to state a law or government action unconstitutional. Although the Constitution does not specifically grant this power to the Court, the power of judicial review is a deeply- rooted norm of the Court (“Supreme Court of the United States,” 4/13/06). The United States government, in general, accepts this judicial practice and abides by consequent Court rulings. The idea behind judicial review is to ensure the will of the whole nation, as framed in the Constitution, over the will of the legislative and executive branches, which may only represent the will of some of the people (The Court and Constitutional Interpretation, 4/14/06). [...]
[...] The oxford companion to politics of the world (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press, 762-763. Lewis, F. P. (1999). The context of judicial activism: the endurance of the Warren Court legacy in a conservative age. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporation, 5-23. “Marshall, John.” (2003). The new encyclopedia britannica. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica Incorporation, volume Miller, A. S. (1969). On the need for “Impact Analysis” of Supreme Court decisions. In T. L. Becker The impact of Supreme Court decisions (pp.7-16). New York: Oxford University [...]
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee