The Supreme Court Generally Should Defer To The Elected Branches Research Papers Examples

When most Americans hear that the Supreme Court has utilized judicial review to strike down a federal legislation, they often understand the Court’s act as a nullification of the legislation. Simply put, the court has undone the work of the congress and ended the life of the statute. The other branches of the federal government are elected by the Americans and are entrusted with the responsibility of making laws. Nevertheless, the reality is that judicial review does not usually end the life of the statute, but offers an exemplary opportunity for the congress to review the legislation and incorporate or discard some parts. Deference ultimately leads to formulation and implementation of laws that are practical and fair. However, the court’s regular actions of striking down legislations passed by congress will ruin the court’s reputation in the eyes of the public. Such acts only makes the elected branches appear puppets with limited powers despite the fact the citizens and the constitution grant them massive authority.
The belief that the Supreme Court’s decisions in matters regarding constitutional resolutions are the last word on the constitutionality of any legislation springs from the concept of judicial supremacy. The notion of judicial supremacy holds that the Supreme Court’s pronouncements on the interpretation of the constitution are legal in nature. Apparently, this system pride itself as being governed by the rule of law and the people’s interests are at heart. It is, therefore, imperative that law be applied equally and consistently. Seemingly, the Supreme Court’s over uses the constitutional authority it has and uses its powers to frustrate efforts by the congress to amend any law. The American constitution defines that there must be the final interpreter of the law. Being the uppermost court of the land, the Supreme Court’s has the sole authority and mandate to carry out that responsibility.
Members of the congress formulate and enact policies that best suit the interests of the majority of the Americans. The fact the Supreme Court is insulated from politics does not mean that the court should challenge the actions of the congress knowing very well that the congress cannot challenge the court’s constitutional interpretations and decisions. Being politically dispassionate, the court is the best institution of the federal administration that can guard discrete rights and the welfares of the minority from the dictatorship of numbers. With such an important role, it is, therefore, supposed to strike down any legislation passed by the congress, but is against the welfare of the public. However, turning down such controversial legislations will portray the congress negatively and people might perceive the congress as irrelevant, irrational, and unfounded. As a delaying strategy, the Supreme Court should defer such legislations thus making the legislation loose meaning with time and garnered attention will unquestionably decrease with the stretch.
The constitution is more than simply a legal document; it creates and structures law-making policies and processes as well as establishing political institutions and bounds of federal power. Moreover, members of each branch take an oath to protect and safeguard this constitution. Therefore, the president and members of the congress have the necessary and legitimate power to interpret the constitution on their own. Additionally, being a democratic state, the constitutional interpretations of elected individuals are superior to those of the elected Supreme Court judges who are not answerable to voters. From a democratic perspective, therefore, the Supreme Court’s act of invalidating legislations enacted by a duly elected congress creates a democratic problem. No matter the noncompliance of the legislation, deferring the legislation is the best option as it will perverse the people’s confidence in the congress.
Rendering legislations void denies the congress its preferences. However, if the Supreme Court defers to the congress, the congress might respond to the court and adjust the legislation in a manner that gratifies the Supreme Court’s jurisprudential predilections. For instance, in 1996, President Clinton refused to sign the Welfare Reform Act and returned it to congress where it was amended to suit Clinton’s policy preference. Later, Clinton signed the bill to become law without conflicting the preferences of the congress and the president. There is every motive to believe that the congress and elected branches of the federal government will take action to modify a certain situation following the Supreme Court’s deferment. Additionally, the Supreme Court cannot be perceived as a real court and their way of delivering Justices should not match that of real judges.
Presently, there are radically different opinions of the Supreme Court’s role in policymaking. The canon of Judicial Engagement holds that the Supreme Court should use its powers to check the other branches of the government and certify that they do not exceed their authority. The judicial restraint holds that the Supreme Court’s should defer to any decisions made by the democratically elected branches of the government. However, the various formulated and proposed by the “political” branches of the federal government must stay within the boundaries of the constitutions of the several states and the U.S constitution. Phantom constitutional interpretations must be jettisoned. Adhering to the philosophy of judicial restraint implies that judges of the Supreme Court should consider the judiciary as the least authoritative branch of the federal government, reveres the value of predictability and stability in legislation, and leaves most policymaking verdicts to be determined by the elected branches.
The elected branches of the government are composed of people from diverse origins and background. They represent the vast American population. If the Supreme Court defers to the branches, policymaking will be more comprehensive and inclusive to guarantee the Americans a working justice system where their interests are effectively catered for. Additionally, the congress is clear about what they want and what the public requires. Senators and congressional representatives rarely pass ambiguous laws and if it so happens, the other branches rather than the judiciary will determine what the laws mean. However, the Supreme Court will have to intervene and ensure that the principle of separation of powers is upheld.
The above elucidation undoubtedly indicates that the elected branches of the government are in a better position to formulate legislations. Being democratically elected, the congress has the public consent and confidence. It can, therefore, formulate and implement effective laws to the advantage of the majority. The Supreme Court’s act of rendering null legislations enacted by the congress impedes the congress’s preference. Such scenarios should be avoided and judicial restraint maintained. Being unelected, the Supreme Court should defer to the duly elected branches. Their supremacy should not impede the operations of the elected branches which are accountable to the people. However, although the congress superintends the budget and operations of the Supreme Court, it should not use such powers to overrule decisions of the Supreme Court.