Imbalance: The U.S. Supreme Court, Its History, Power, and Proper Role

Since the creation of the constitution the relationship between Congress and the United States Supreme Court (USSC) has been on a constant path that leads to the Judicial Branch ruling over the Legislative. The steps taken towards this end start fairly innocently with the Marshall Court cementing out the primary role of the court as a ruler on what is and is not constitutional; the major strides towards judicial supremacy came with the Warren Court. The more recent Rehnquist Court may have seen the constitution in a different light but its rulings moved the court down the same road it had already been treading.

The Marshall Court was perhaps the most important in creating the framework for our modern USSC. In the case of Martin v. Hunter's lessee the Marshall Court reversed a state decision, giving itself the final word on constitutional interpretation. This came after the Court had established its ability to review laws and acts of the government. In 1965 the Warren Court effectively used the pre-established power of the Supreme Court, which had been further entrenched by previous rulings, to effectively write a "right to marital privacy" into the Bill of Rights. Roe v. Wade further expanded the court's previous ruling until it was the general right of privacy which was read into the Bill of Rights.

At this point the courts effectively had free reign to rule as they wished. The time when a President or the Congress would defy the Justices had long since passed. While in the past inaction by either of the other branches of government could neuter the Judicial branch, by 1976 the USSC could only have its rulings overturned by a future USSC. This was the case with Gregg v. Georgia. The ruling of the case overrode the Furman v. Georgia ruling where the USSC determined that the death penalty was unconstitutional and is one of the few times that a Supreme Court ruling was voided. And now there is a Supreme Court which has practically unquestioned power. While its decisions may be the subject of debate, the Court's ability to overrule the Congress is no longer questioned. Even the conservative Rehnquist Court has not curbed the supremacy of the USSC over the Congress.

The factors which entered into these changes are the judge's personal interpretation of the constitution. While Marshall's court saw the constitution placing the USSC as interpreting the constitution and not making policy future courts took a more proactive approach that favored virtual policy making. And the more policy the Judicial branch made the more it was expected to make until modern America is perfectly calm at the idea that the nine figures on the Supreme Court could be considered the Oligarchs of policy.

Is this final end of Judicial dominance over the Congress good for the Republic? No. One of the primary reasons for the check and balance system of government is to prevent any one branch of government from holding too much power. It both interferes with actual discussion and debate going on in local, state, and federal legislatures and it hastens the process of policy making. America's republic was meant to have slow changes which force people to think and compromise. There is no room for compromise or much thought at all with the speed that the USSC decides cases. Instead of months or years the Court makes its decisions within the week. Imbalance and thoughtless action are never positive traits in any government.

To solve the imbalance in the system and restore the roles of the Supreme Court and the Congress, the Executive branch must take inaction along with Congress. During the next decision made by the USSC which is controversial the other two branches must do nothing. Ignoring the court and not enforcing its will would bring back some balance. The nine justices were not granted power to execute their rulings. Then we will get to the USSC back to its proper place as one of three branches of government and not the ruler of two branches.