Module 1 Discussion Topic In The United States 545111

Module 1 Discussiondiscussion Topicin The United States The Supreme C

In the United States, the Supreme Court has the final say concerning any law or dispute in the land. The decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court may not be appealed and become the law of the land the instant the opinions are made public by publication of the document. No other branch of the government has the absolute final say on any issue, legal or otherwise. Further, members of the Supreme Court are not elected by the public but rather are appointed for life by the President and Senate and cannot be removed by less than a 2/3 vote of the United States Congress.

For your discussion in this module, we will use the basic debate form. The proposition set forth is this: "The United States Supreme Court powers are appropriate and essential. No other legal form or entity could exist superior to our system." If you are posting your initial response, click the “Start a new thread” button. If you are responding, click the “Reply to Thread” button for the thread you wish to respond to. In your primary post, affirm or oppose the proposition by no later than Thursday 11:59 PM EST/EDT.

Paper For Above instruction

The role and authority of the United States Supreme Court stand as a cornerstone of the American legal system. The proposition at hand affirms the appropriateness and essential nature of the Court’s powers, stating that no other legal entity could hold a superior position within the system. To critically examine this, it is important to understand the scope of the Court’s authority, its historical development, and its implications for democracy and the rule of law.

The Supreme Court’s authority is rooted in the Constitution, particularly in the judiciary's role outlined in Article III. Its power of judicial review, established by the landmark case Marbury v. Madison (1803), grants it the authority to invalidate laws that are found to be unconstitutional. This power ensures that the legislative and executive branches do not exceed their constitutional limits, thereby acting as a check on other branches. The Court’s ability to set legal precedents further consolidates its role as the ultimate interpreter of constitutional law.

Critics argue that the Court’s broad powers can lead to judiciary overreach, potentially infringing upon the democratic will expressed through elected representatives. For example, decisions in critical issues such as abortion rights or gun control often reflect judicial interpretations that override legislative bodies' policies. This has led to debates about the legitimacy and scope of judicial authority, with some advocating for reforms to limit the Court’s power or to alter its structure. Conversely, supporters maintain that the Court’s independence and final say are vital for protecting constitutional rights against transient political majorities.

The appointment process, involving the President and Senate, is designed to insulate justices from political pressures, allowing for impartial adjudication. However, the process also reflects the political nature of appointments, sometimes leading to ideological polarization that can influence Court decisions significantly. The lifetime tenure of justices ensures judicial independence but raises questions about accountability and potential for aging or out-of-touch judges to influence national policy for decades.

Historical developments show that the Court’s powers have evolved in response to societal needs and constitutional crises. Landmark rulings such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and Roe v. Wade (1973) demonstrate its capacity to shape social policy. Yet, some argue that judicial activism may undermine the democratic process by allowing unelected judges to impose views on the populace, which underscores the delicate balance between judicial authority and democratic accountability.

Legal scholars debate whether the Court’s powers are inherently appropriate or whether they have grown beyond what the founders intended. Affirming the Court’s supremacy often rests on the belief that a single, final arbiter is necessary to uphold constitutional integrity amid political discord. Opponents, however, emphasize the importance of legislative and democratic processes, warning against the power of unelected officials to shape fundamental rights and policies.

In conclusion, the Court’s powers are deeply embedded within the constitutional fabric of the United States, serving as a guardian of the Constitution and protector of individual rights. While its powers are appropriate given the need for a final interpretative authority, ongoing debates about its scope, legitimacy, and potential reforms highlight the need for continual scrutiny and debate. Ensuring that the Supreme Court balances judicial independence with accountability remains vital for maintaining a healthy, functioning democracy.

References

• Chemerinsky, E. (2019). Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (5th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
• Friedman, L. M. (2010). A History of American Law (3rd ed.). Touchstone.
• Berger, R. J. (2011). Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Harvard University Press.
• O'Brien, D. M. (2017). The Constitution and the Courts. Oxford University Press.
• Corwin, E. S. (2015). The Supreme Court and the Constitution: An Analytical History. Princeton University Press.
• Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America. Basic Books.
• Levinson, S. (2006). Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (and How We the People Can Correct It). Oxford University Press.
• Tushnet, M. (2018). The Constitution of the United States. Oxford University Press.
• Liptak, A. (2020). The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries that Define America. Penguin Press.
• Oleszek, W. J. (2017). Congress and Its Members: The Process and Politics. CQ Press.