Judicial review is an important power of the Supreme Court. It lets the Court check if laws and actions from Congress and the President follow the Constitution. This power was first introduced in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Chief Justice John Marshall said that it is the job of the courts to explain what the law means.
Supreme Court justices look at judicial review in a few different ways:
Constitutional Principles: Justices often refer to the text of the Constitution and what the people who wrote it intended. Article III of the Constitution explains what the judicial branch does, and the justices use this to back up their decisions.
Precedent: There is a rule called stare decisis that encourages justices to follow earlier decisions. For example, in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, the Court decided to overturn segregation laws by using the earlier case of Plessy v. Ferguson from 1896 as a reference.
Judicial Activism vs. Restraint: Justices often discuss the difference between activism, which is about expanding rights, and restraint, where they choose to stick to what elected officials decide. For instance, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg often pushed for a broader understanding to protect individual rights.
How Supreme Court justices interpret judicial review plays a crucial role in shaping how the government works in America. Important cases help guide their decisions, affecting civil rights, government powers, and fairness in society. The ongoing discussions among justices show how flexible and changing the understanding of the Constitution can be in the U.S. justice system.
Judicial review is an important power of the Supreme Court. It lets the Court check if laws and actions from Congress and the President follow the Constitution. This power was first introduced in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Chief Justice John Marshall said that it is the job of the courts to explain what the law means.
Supreme Court justices look at judicial review in a few different ways:
Constitutional Principles: Justices often refer to the text of the Constitution and what the people who wrote it intended. Article III of the Constitution explains what the judicial branch does, and the justices use this to back up their decisions.
Precedent: There is a rule called stare decisis that encourages justices to follow earlier decisions. For example, in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, the Court decided to overturn segregation laws by using the earlier case of Plessy v. Ferguson from 1896 as a reference.
Judicial Activism vs. Restraint: Justices often discuss the difference between activism, which is about expanding rights, and restraint, where they choose to stick to what elected officials decide. For instance, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg often pushed for a broader understanding to protect individual rights.
How Supreme Court justices interpret judicial review plays a crucial role in shaping how the government works in America. Important cases help guide their decisions, affecting civil rights, government powers, and fairness in society. The ongoing discussions among justices show how flexible and changing the understanding of the Constitution can be in the U.S. justice system.