The Supreme Court And Judicial Review

The Supreme Court And Judicial Review

The Supreme Court and Judicial Review In your initial post of at least words, respond to one of these questions: What judicial philosophy should guide the Supreme Court's exercise of judicial review? Should the Supreme Court's power of judicial review be strictly limited by a constitutional amendment? In answering either question, clearly state your position (thesis) at the beginning of your post. Define important terms and explain your position fully. Consider pro and con arguments on both sides of your position and respond to the con arguments.

Justify your position with facts and persuasive reasoning. Fully respond to all parts of the question. Write in your own words. Support your position with APA citations to two or more of the required resources required for this discussion. Please be sure that you demonstrate understanding of these resources, integrate them into your argument, and cite them properly.

Paper For Above instruction

The role of the Supreme Court in American constitutional governance critically hinges on the doctrine of judicial review—the power to assess the constitutionality of legislative acts and executive actions. This paper advocates that the judicial philosophy guiding the Court's exercise of judicial review should be rooted in a doctrine of constitutional fidelity combined with pragmatic judicial restraint. Furthermore, it argues that while the Court’s power of judicial review is a fundamental aspect of constitutional interpretation, it should not be so strictly limited by a constitutional amendment, as such a restriction could undermine judicial independence and the system of checks and balances integral to American democracy.

Thesis Statement: The Supreme Court's exercise of judicial review should be guided primarily by a constitutional fidelity approach, emphasizing fidelity to the original principles of the Constitution, while exercising pragmatic restraint. Additionally, the power of judicial review should not be solely limited through a constitutional amendment, as this would impair judicial independence and limit the Court’s ability to serve as a guardian of constitutional integrity.

Defining Key Terms

Judicial review refers to the Supreme Court’s authority to interpret the Constitution and invalidate laws or executive actions that are found to be unconstitutional (Tushnet, 2005). It is a cornerstone of American constitutional law, establishing the judiciary as a co-equal branch capable of checking both Congress and the President.

Judicial philosophy pertains to the underlying principles, values, and interpretive methods that guide judges in their decision-making processes. Prominent philosophies include judicial activism—where courts actively shape policy—and judicial restraint—where courts defer to legislation and executive decisions unless clearly unconstitutional (Tribe & Waldron, 2005).

Guiding Judicial Philosophy: Fidelity and Restraint

An effective judicial philosophy for exercising judicial review recognizes the importance of fidelity to the Constitution’s original principles coupled with pragmatic restraint. Fidelity to the Constitution involves interpreting it as a document that embodies fundamental rights and principles intended to withstand constitutional challenges. This approach is consistent with a Living Constitution framework that considers historical context but remains committed to core constitutional values (Feldman, 2010).

Moreover, pragmatic judicial restraint ensures that the courts do not overstep their constitutional role by attempting to legislate or make policy decisions, thereby respecting the roles assigned to other branches of government (Dowd, 2012). A balanced approach prevents judicial activism from infringing on democratic processes while ensuring that constitutionally protected rights are upheld.

Arguments for and Against Strict Limitation by Constitutional Amendment

Some advocate for strictly limiting judicial review through constitutional amendments, arguing that this reinforces democratic governance by placing the ultimate authority in elected representatives (Tushnet, 2005). Proponents contend that judicial review grants unelected judges excessive power to overturn legislation based on subjective interpretations, thus undermining the democratic will.

However, opponents argue that such limitations could weaken the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individual rights and check legislative or executive excesses. A constitutional amendment imposing limits on judicial review risks politicizing constitutional interpretation, potentially leading to an erosion of constitutional protections (Tribe & Waldron, 2005).

Responding to Con Arguments

While it is understandable that some view unchecked judicial review as a threat to democracy, history demonstrates that courts play an indispensable role in protecting fundamental rights from transient majorities. For instance, landmark decisions like Brown v. Board of Education exemplify judicial review’s capacity to effect social progress. Limiting judicial review through amendments could hinder this protective function, leaving minority rights vulnerable and eroding constitutional supremacy.

Furthermore, the independence of the judiciary is necessary for the fair and impartial application of the law. Imposing constitutional limits would threaten this independence, making courts more susceptible to political pressures and reducing their role as impartial arbiters of constitutional disputes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the exercise of judicial review by the Supreme Court should be guided by a philosophy of constitutional fidelity and pragmatic restraint. This approach allows the Court to interpret the Constitution faithfully while respecting the democratic process and judicial independence. Limiting judicial review solely through constitutional amendments could weaken the judiciary’s crucial role in protecting rights and maintaining constitutional supremacy. Therefore, maintaining an active and principled judicial review is essential for safeguarding the core principles of American democracy.

References

• Dowd, M. (2012). Judicial activism, in full display. Virginian–Pilot, B7.
• Feldman, N. (2010). What a liberal court should be. New York Times Magazine, 38-43.
• Tushnet, M. (2005). Democracy versus judicial review. Dissent, 52(2), 59-63.
• Tribe, L. H., & Waldron, J. (2005). On judicial review: Laurence H. Tribe, Jeremy Waldron, and Mark Tushnet debate. Dissent, 52(3), 81–86. doi:10.1353/dss.2005.0090
• Wilson Quarterly. (2011). No small wonder. 35(3), 60-61.
• Constitution USA with Peter Sagal. (2013). Episode II - It’s a free country. [Series episode].
• PBS. (2011). Supreme Court justices take a seat at the witness table. [Video].