At the top of our federal court system, the Supreme Court has greatly shaped U.S. History by providing a basis for stability and government. Commonly referred to as the "court of last resort", the Supreme Court weighs in on legal cases to make final decisions where lower courts are unable to settle themselves, whether due to conflict or jurisdiction (378). In a way, the Supreme Court acts as a parent to the state and federal courts by setting laws and handling internal disputes. Although state and federal courts have jurisdiction over their own region, the supreme court rules over their entirety and can step in at any point to overrule another Court's decision.
While the Supreme Court's judicial decision making has many different influences, the two main factors can be categorized as either legal and political. Legal factors weighing on the court include the many precedents, or constitutional norms that justices must observe and follow, as well as the U.S. Constitution. While there are many ways to interpret the Constitution, the most basic of these is the literalist view, known as "Strict construction", where literalists believe that there is no need to consider any factor aside from the actual wording of the constitution (393). Naysayers, who support the idea of a "living constitution" argue that the constitution cannot be the only factor in some cases, as there are many topics of concern that are not expressly written. They recognize that the constitution must be interpreted with the evolving nation and circumstances in mind (393).
Political influences on the Supreme Court include the justice's personal ideologies or biases as well as any public opinion or weighing factions. Religion also plays a role in these political factors, since in the U.S., we can follow and practice any religion we chose. This can cause issues within the Court, as the way we handle religious abnormalities is a grey area. As religious issues have muddied the water, the Lemon test was created to help determine their ability to grant government aid to religious organizations. The Lemon test rules that a religious practice violated the establishment clause if it did not have a "secular legislative purpose," either advanced or inhibited religion or if it fostered "an excessive government entanglement with religion" (98).
Even with such rigorous [..] there are flaws in the Supreme Court's decision-making process, such as in the case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2007), where through a mistake in interpreting the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Congress had to step in and overturned the Supreme Court's decision based upon a previous, ill-worded law (378). In cases like these, the other branches of government, such as the President and Congress, can step in and apply proper checks and balances to solve the issue at hand.
Through multiple levels of checks and balances, I think the Supreme Court is an effective agent of change. Although there are restraints set in place by the constitution and other branches of the American democracy, there is still room for the Supreme Court to enforce laws to well suit our country more so than previously. Such restraints placed by the legislative and executive branch are not always a burden, as they do provide means of order and consistency. If the Judicial branch could do as they please […]
As I have heard many times that the constitution was written with a vague undertone and meant to be left open for interpretation, I agree that the constitution should be ambiguous, giving us the capability of using it to the best advantage.] I believe that just as it was written for us, the people, the constitution should be governed by us, the people. Even though all three government branches all work to interpret and abide by the constitution, the Supreme Court works to ensure these ideals show relevant in our courts today.
add commentary on religion. And how
I think the Supreme court has handled the issue of religion in the best possible way, considering that religion can prove to be a sensitive topic, especially when dealing with the public in a way that may offend the masses.
Although I believe heavily in the separation of church and state, the Supreme