What is this?

Passion

Work in Progress

Rhetoric and Civic Life

Rocky: 10 out of 10
Moderating Philosophy-Almost Final Draft

The Judicial Branch: Too Much Power?

Posted on February 14, 2013 by Jason Marshall
Amongst the three branches of the federal government, the judicial branch is often viewed as the
most mysterious and enigmatic in the eyes of the populous. Some even believe that because of its
furtive nature and ability to operate behind closed doors, the judicial branch is the most powerful
of the branches.
A system of checks and balances is supposed to be in place so that each branch is regulated by
the others in an effort to avoid an uneven distribution of power. Yet somehow the judicial branch
is still able to function without the approval or supervision of either the executive or legislative
branch. The federal judiciary legally engages in self-regulation on ethic issues and the
administration of Americas federal courts. Meanwhile, there is a plethora of well-documented
cases of ethics violations, fraud, abuse, etc., and in turn, the very foundations that declared the
judicial system to be an impartial arbiter are being called into question.
So while the President and key members of Congress get more press coverage and are probably
invited out to dine or speak more frequently, the federal judges are the ones with the last say on
what the law actually means; and they do not need legislative approval. Judges have the power to
give teeth and new meaning to statues and cases on a case-by-case method. And on top of this,
the judges are not even elected by the people directly; the President nominates individuals to
become justices. Of course, once a justice takes office, they are guaranteed a spot on the bench
for life, regardless of national public opinion. This means that we have nine unelected people
with no term limits and no direct accountability to the people providing answers to some of the
most controversial federal issues.
But the Supreme Courts power is surprisingly more overreaching. Even after a hundred years
after a courts ruling, judicial precedence allows that particular ruling to apply to federal law
unless drastic measures are taken to overturn it (e.g. Brown v. Board of Education). Additionally,
the Supreme Court can essentially overturn any act of Congress by declaring it unconstitutional.
Whereas in the very beginnings of this country, whatever the Supreme Court decided was viewed
as a judicial opinion in the eyes of the other two branches, today, the Supreme Court is much

more respected. It appears that the majority of Supreme Court Justices are intent on legislating
from the bench instead of merely interpreting the Constitution. Since they have set precedent in
overturning legislation passed by Congress, they have put the federal government on a slippery
slop and they are positioning themselves to be the most powerful branch.
Congress has chosen, for whatever reason, be it laziness or genuine respect of the Courts, to
allow the Court to say what is law and what isnt. Congress has neglected to challenge the
Courts determination to legislate, and has made enforcement available to the Judiciary. In the
past, the judicial branch was in no way capable of enforcing their rulings, or even having their
opinions deemed rulings. In regards to the 1832 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Worcester v.
Georgia, Andrew Jackson is credited with saying, John Marshall [the Supreme Court Chief
Justice] has made his decision, now let him enforce it! If Barack Obama were to say something
along the lines of this to Americas current Chief Justice, John Roberts Jr., there would be mass
hysteria of how President Obama disrespects the courts.
Our legislation can help keep the federal Judiciary accountable, and it can provide assurances to
the American public that there is independent oversight over those entrusted with the
responsibility of interpreting the Constitution and the laws of the United States. And so in
commencement, I leave you with the fact that when the Supreme Court makes a decision, their
documented official decision ends with It is so ordered. If that does not indicate some kind of
high-priority power, I do not know what does.
So my question to any readers is this: Do you think that the Supreme Courts lack of
communication with the people makes it less accountable and more powerful? Would you agree
that Supreme Court has significantly increased its power over the years? Should this increase in
power be allowed or is it a violation of checks and balances as described by the Constitution?
http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/justice-kennedy-on-supreme-court-power-2013-3
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leon-friedman/the-supreme-court-vs-cong_b_1561123.html
This entry was posted in Rhetoric and Civic Life. Bookmark the permalink.
Rocky: 10 out of 10
Moderating Philosophy-Almost Final Draft

2 Responses to The Judicial Branch: Too Much Power?

1.

Chen Zhuang says:

March 22, 2013 at 5:24 am
Its interesting how you brought up media coverage as the Fourth Estate and that by
covering the Legislative and Executive branches, its holding them accountable. I dont

believe the media does a good job with that due to its corporate nature and primarilybiased coverage. However, I would recommend BBC because it takes an outsider
perspective and has the least intentional bias.
I am going disagree with your general statement that the media does not cover the
Judicial branch. I feel like lately, given the high-profile nature of the cases, the media
HAS been quite active, and may have even influenced a decision or two, as in the case of
Justice Roberts and Obamacare, and possibly Kennedy with gay rights. Even though the
justices are rather sequestered, they are not blind nor do they have no access to
technology.
I do agree that the Judicial Branch seems to be rising in power at this point, given how
ineffective Congress and to some extent, the Executive branch, are. Also, the point about
their enigmatic nature However, as you pointed out with Jackson, history has shown that
power is never really equally distributed among the three branches. The relationships
between the branches as dynamic, constantly shifting through time, and while the Judicial
Branch may seem to have more power now, they may not in the future.

2.

Brave Heart Sanchez says:

March 21, 2013 at 4:53 pm
Do you believe that its power is being used for ill?
Open question, do what you will with it.
As for the constitution, and other laws, the Judicial branch does indeed have the power to
rule it unconstitutional, but the Definition of what is and is not constitutional is not
something that is static, but ever changing. They are there to keep the laws of the land in
order, both legally and morally. In Korematsu vs. USA it was their final word that
decided that racism is wrong, and that the war time laws were illegal. Should they not
have the power to claim whats wrong and right, and how that should be implemented?

Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.