Supreme Court Criticisms Supreme Courts Criticisms Overview

Supreme Courts Criticisms Overview

Supreme Courts Criticisms Overview

Introduction

Since its founding, the Supreme Court has held a revered place in American society, tasked with interpreting the Constitution and setting legal precedent for the nation. However, the Supreme Court is not immune to criticism and scrutiny. In fact, throughout history, many people have raised concerns about the Court’s decisions, its composition, and its role in American democracy. In this article, we will explore the criticisms that people have of the Supreme Court, including its perceived lack of diversity, its role in partisan politics, and its lack of accountability.

Lack of Diversity

One of the primary criticisms of the Supreme Court is its lack of diversity. The Court has historically been dominated by white men, with only four women having served on the Court to date. Moreover, the Court has traditionally been composed of justices who have legal backgrounds similar to those of the justices who preceded them, leading to a lack of intellectual diversity on the Court.
Critics argue that this lack of diversity can lead to a narrow interpretation of the law, with the Court failing to take into account the perspectives of marginalized groups and failing to recognize the impact of legal decisions on these groups.

Partisan Politics

Another criticism of the Supreme Court is its role in partisan politics. With justices appointed for life, many people fear that the Court can become a political tool for whichever party or ideology is in power. This fear has been exacerbated in recent years as the Court has become increasingly polarized, with decisions often split along party lines.
Critics argue that this polarization undermines the Court’s role as an independent arbiter of the law, leading to a perception that the Court’s decisions are driven by political ideology rather than objective legal analysis.

Lack of Accountability

Another criticism of the Supreme Court is its lack of accountability. Because justices are appointed for life, they are not directly accountable to the electorate. Moreover, the Court’s decisions are often final and cannot be appealed, meaning that there is no mechanism for the public to hold the Court accountable for its decisions.
Critics argue that this lack of accountability can lead the Court to make decisions that are out of step with the public’s values and priorities. Additionally, because the Court is not directly accountable to the electorate, there is a perception that justices can act with impunity, without fear of repercussion.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court is a vital institution in American democracy, tasked with interpreting the Constitution and setting legal precedent for the nation. However, it is not immune to criticism and scrutiny. Critics argue that the Court’s lack of diversity can lead to a narrow interpretation of the law, that its role in partisan politics undermines its independence, and that its lack of accountability can lead to decisions that are out of step with the public’s values. As the Court continues to shape American law and policy, it is important to consider these criticisms and work to ensure that the Court remains an independent and accountable institution.

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body operating in the United States, consisting of nine total Justices (one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices), who are nominated by the President and voted into office by the Senate.

The Supreme Court was designed to include non-elected officials in order to distinguish itself from and keep in check the legislative and executive branches. According to the inscription outside of the Supreme Court Building, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This was determined in the case of Marbury v. Madison.

Much of this power is given to the Court through a system of trust, that they will interpret and uphold the law of the United States, as well as declare unreasonable laws as unconstitutional to a certain extent. With this power, however, comes inevitable criticism for each landmark Supreme Court ruling that has been made to help redefine American law, in addition to their questionable system of procedures. Aside from becoming the arbiter of the Constitution, the case of Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee received a Supreme Court ruling that gave itself the power to decide if a State’s interpretation of Federal law is correct.

The main criticism faced by the Supreme Court of the United States is the struggle between judicial activism and judicial restraint. The Court is given the power to strike down any Federal law created by Congress which it deems as unconstitutional, moving outside of Constitutional borders and it has practiced this many times throughout the
years. Many people believe that the Court was established merely to interpret the law, while only striking down laws in rare cases which extend beyond obvious bounds of
rationality.

Supreme Court Chief Justices have been accused of using judicial activism when declaring rational laws on the basis of their own beliefs, rather then using the guidelines of the Constitution. The Supreme Court had some of its more turbulent times of criticism during the Civil War Era, when the nation’s ideals were largely divided between the North and the South, and also during the Civil Rights Era, a time when great strides of civil liberty were made by African Americans.

While the United States Government was slowly establishing new territories westward which explicitly prohibited slavery, Supreme Court decisions, such as Dred Scott v. Sandfordupheld slavery. Years later, further decisions pertaining to racial ethics also proved to become controversial landmark Supreme Court decisions, once again proving that the The court was a step behind the evolving nature of the United States Constitution.

Another debate in which the Supreme Court perpetually deals with is State versus Federal power. The writers of the Constitution, including James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, claimed in the Federalist Papers that their Constitution structure would ensure that the power of the State, governments would not be infringed upon. Many believe that the states should be free to operate within the broad guidelines of the U.S. Constitution, enforced by the central Federal Government.

The Supreme Court, however, has been accused of providing too much power to the Federal Government to supersede state power. In addition, the Commerce Clause has been used by the Supreme Court as a way to regulate matters which have little to do with
interstate commerce, as the Clause was originally designed for.