Nature of Supreme Court

• Judicial Independence 


  Justices have life tenure and congress can change the number of justices to change ideological balance. Justices are nominate by the president and confirmed by senate which politicises this process e.g. senate refused Garland in 2018
• Judicial Review


  Set up in Marbury v Madison (1803) it allowed them to declare laws or actions unconstitutional
• Judicial Restraint 


  Justices should defer to the executive and legislative branches. Stress is placed on previous decisions
• Judicial Activism


  The court uses their position to promote desirable outcomes in society. Loosely interpreting the constitution instead of precise wordings
• Judicial branch is completely separate to other branches
• Have life tenure so can't be removed by president or congress
• Receives 8000 cases but only 80-100 are actually heard
• Has power to strike down law if deemed unconstitutional
• Supreme Court is political

  • Nomination and confirmation are highly political
  • Make key decisions on public policy like abortion, LGBTQ
  • Judicial review means that decisions are quasi-legislative making sc like a third house of legislature
  • Obama attacked Citizens united ruling with justices in front of him
• Supreme Court is political

  • Judges are not politicians which means they have experience in the field
  • Court is independent of other branches as set out in constitution
  • Judges make decisions based of legal argument
• Originalism Constitution


  Meaning of the constitution is fixed and should not be subjected to interpretation. Most closely links to Thomas who values Founding Fathers and values people in US society as the time it was written
• In favour of originalism

  • Restricts the extent to which justices can force personal values
  • Gives greater authority to constitution
  • New principles should be done through democratic process not unelected judges
• Living Constitution


  Constitution is an evolutionary document that can change over time through the reinterpretation of supreme court
• In favour of living constitution

  • Stops constitution becoming outdated
  • Virtually impossible to discern the exact view and values of founding fathers in modern society
  • Founding fathers may have been deliberately vague allowing judicial discretion