Supreme Court of the United States

“ Those who critique the Supreme Court’s power emphasize that when the Court acts to invalidate statutes, its decisions “have an unusually high degree of finality or ‘strength’ [] by global standards.” [5] This high degree of finality derives in part from the Court’s approach to judicial review, known as “judicial supremacy.” [6] That is, the Court has held that it has the last word on constitutional interpretation and that its decisions bind not only the parties in a particular case but also future action by the President, Congress, and the states. ”

“ This history, which dates back to the Founding and encompasses formative periods of the nation’s history, highlights how lawmakers and the public frequently have been keenly attentive to and engaged in debate about the role the Court plays within the constitutional system. Reform debates have reflected the institutional needs of an expanding nation, and they have involved partisan conflict and philosophical struggle over substantive constitutional values and the power of government to serve the needs of the people. ”

“ It is true, that, under the Federal Constitution, an inferior tribunal cannot compel a State to appear as a party; but it is at very different proposition to say, that a State cannot, by her own consent, appear in any other court, than the Supreme court. The general rule applies among all sovereigns, who, as equals, are not amenable to courts of each other ”

“ The Constitution creates the fundamental law of the nation, understood to embody the will of the people. But as a written document, it depends on actual governmental institutions for its articulation and enforcement. Beginning in the founding era and continuing to the present day, the role of the Court in carrying out this fundamental law has been contested. Over the intervening centuries, the place of the Court in the American system has changed. ”

“ It is alarming to find so many Members of Congress sworn into the Federal Court at its first sitting in New York. The question then is whether it is proper that Congress should consist of so large a proportion of Members who are sworn attomies in the Federal Courts ; or whether it is prudent to trust men to enact laws who are practising on them in another department. Let common sense answer. If Congress does consist of practising Attorneys, the laws enacted may, in a great measure, depend on the particular causes such individuals may have to manage in the Judiciary ”

“ The role the Court plays in major political and social conflicts has long made its composition and jurisprudence subjects of debate in the nation’s civic life. Throughout American history, including in recent decades, conflict over the Court has played out with varying degrees of intensity in the processes by which the President nominates and the Senate confirms new Justices. ”