The Judiciary Branch

While the Judicial Branch doesn't have the power of Purse (legislative branch) and the the power of the Sword (executive branch), its responsibility is too make sure that the legislative branch and executive branch are held accountable and abide by the rules given in the Constitution. Otherwise, the Supreme Court can punish members of the legislative branch or the president through impeachments. Therefore, the democratic convention is for the Judiciary to be independent and keep away from any political pretension. Also called the Scotus, the Supreme Court is a part of the federal judiciary system (along side with federal and State courts).

Has the Supreme Court ever become dangerous for democracy?

Even if the third article was dedicated to the Supreme Court, the judiciary branch was put in place in 1803 during the Marbury v. Madison law. It established the judicial review (verification of the constitutional validity of an act and decision). Ergo, the Supreme Court captured this opportunity to put its power into practice.

What does the Supreme Court looks like?

This is the Supreme Court!

The convention since Rooselvelt's Reform Mode "Court Packing Plan" 1837 is that 9 justices rule in the Supreme Court:

- 1 presides de court, the Chief Justice

- 8 associate justices

They are nominated by the Potus (president) for life and confirmed by the Senate.

The Discretional Power

The Supreme Court has the duty to meticulously chose the cases it hears, for once an issue is considered, it inevitably becomes a national issue.

During judicial reviews two ideologies have been identified:

-The judicial Review Restraint aka Constitutional Originalism: Justices stick to the ideas the founders had while writing the Constitution

And the other Constitutional Theory is

-The Judicial Activism Review aka the Living Constitution: During the judicial Review the Constitution is adopted to actuality making the legislation more adequate to the needs of the people and the time they live in.

Has the Supreme Court ever been influenced by politics? Does the Scotus act against inequalities?

Originalism put to practice

Well first and foremost, in the context of slavery after the Marbury v. Madison law, and not long before the Civil War, the Supreme Court court held during the Dred Scott v. Sanford case in 1857 that American citizenship was exclusive to white people only.

Resentment had grown towards the black community shortly after the Civil War and Reconstruction Amendments (13th, 14th and 15th Amendement) that conferred decent human rights to black people. So after a very conservative judicial review the Plessy v Fergusson act was put into place in 1896 to instate segregation. All progressive laws of the time were thwarted due to the State right's resistance.

It is noticeable here that when the Supreme Court is bound by the original ideology of the Constitution's founders, its power is very limited. Considering that theoretically legislative decisions are legal, we can also see how democracy is completely neglected and the Supreme Court is no longer supreme but weak. How could the Scotus then protect unalienable rights?

Not all Heroes wear capes some wear robes

In between 1954 and 1973 the Warren courts brought a breath of fresh air so much, that they were consequently associated with activism.

Earl Warren, was a justice appointed by Republican President, Eisenhower, in hopes that the Republican Party would have an influence in legislation and the upper hand in the Judiciary Branch. Little did he know, Earl Warren was a moderate partisan of the Republican Party.

He's had a great impact on the Rights Revolution by ruling laws for racial equality and revocation of racial separation in education (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954), ruled a law that widened the freedom of prayer (Engels v. Vitale, 1962), and ruled laws in favour for women's rights with a restoration privacy and the ability to use contraception.

Following these daring changes, the people fearfully manifested their wish to see Justice Warren impeached, because the Supreme Court was not neutral enough under his direction. This shift in the American Constitutional story has shown the impact that justices can have in the implemented political system.

Can a judicial decision be a masked partisan decision?

In December 2000, the America had faced hardship for the presidential elections. The Republican candidate George W. Bush and winning Democratic candidate Al Gore were competing over the Floridian popular votes. The Floridian voters claimed that the butterflied voting ballots were confusing. Moreover, the margin of votes in between the two opponents was only up to a 0,5% percent gap (Bush had won 270 votes and Al Gore had only 266 votes) so recounting was required. Very close...

Five justices of the Supreme Court, were nominated by a Republican president voted in favour of George W. Bush without taking the peoples opinion in account. Consequently, George Bush won the presidential election but didn't win the popular votes. The Supreme Court during this event showed that with a political majority at its head it could take partisan political decisions. More recently it was shown to us that nominations of Supreme Court justices were made strategically. Ex president Donald Trump appointed 3 republican justices, one of which is young justice Amy Coney Barett with the hope that she will stay for a long period of time.

Thought the Supreme Court is seen as the weakest branch, we've seen how it uses its constitutional power to make all its rulings legitimate. Even if the Supreme Court is held accountable by the the Constitution it has shown itself unfair and irresponsible by times towards the people and human rights. As regards to the its political neutrality, it cannot be completely "Supreme" due to the executive branch's influence.

Should the Supreme Court have an equal number of democratic and republican justices?