HY 357 Lecture Notes - Lecture 17: Statutory Interpretation, Amicus Curiae, Socalled
6 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
The Supreme Court in Operation
The Constitution implies, but does not specifically state, that the Supreme Court has the power to
declare laws unconstitutional, both those enacted by Congress and by the states. The principle,
which is known as judicial review, was firmly established in the case of Marbury v. Madison
(1803). The decision, issued by Chief Justice John Marshall, was the first time the court
invalidated an act of Congress (part of the Judiciary Act of 1789). Under Marshall, other key
cases were decided that strengthened the position of the Supreme Court. In Fletcher v. Peck
(1810), for example, the sanctity of contracts was upheld and a state law was ruled
unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court under Marshall practiced judicial nationalism; its decisions favored the
federal government at the expense of the states. In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), it broadly
defined the elastic clause by ruling that a state could not tax a federal bank, and in Gibbons v.
Ogden (1824), it declared that a state could not regulate interstate commerce.
The Court has not always supported a larger role for the federal government. It initially found
much of President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal legislation unconstitutional, primarily for
violating the economic rights of individuals and companies. Roosevelt responded by trying to
increase the size of the Court, which would let him appoint new justices sympathetic to his
program. This attempt to "pack" the Court failed, but around that time the Court began ruling in
Roosevelt's favor anyway.
The appointment of Supreme Court justices
Because Supreme Court justices serve for life and their decisions have a major impact on
American society, their appointments are probably the most important that a president makes.
The selection is certainly not above politics. Historically, 90 percent of the justices come from
the same political party as the president who appointed them. As with the cabinet, concern about
making the Court more inclusive is also a factor. The overriding concern, however, is usually a
nominee's judicial philosophy: How does a candidate view the role of the Court, and what is his
or her stand on the issues that might come before the Court?
Unlike the hearings for judges in the lower federal courts, the confirmation of Supreme Court
justices is highly publicized and sometimes controversial. Robert Bork, a conservative
nominated by President Ronald Reagan, was rejected by the Democrat-controlled Senate.
Clarence Thomas narrowly won confirmation following highly emotional hearings during which
charges of sexual harassment were made against him. The attention given the confirmation
process reflects the impact that the Court's decisions have on Americans' lives and the issues
about which they have strong feelings, such as abortion, school prayer, and the rights of criminal
defendants.
A case comes to the Supreme Court
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
The constitution implies, but does not specifically state, that the supreme court has the power to declare laws unconstitutional, both those enacted by congress and by the states. The principle, which is known as judicial review, was firmly established in the case of marbury v. madison (1803). The decision, issued by chief justice john marshall, was the first time the court invalidated an act of congress (part of the judiciary act of 1789). Under marshall, other key cases were decided that strengthened the position of the supreme court. In fletcher v. peck (1810), for example, the sanctity of contracts was upheld and a state law was ruled unconstitutional. The supreme court under marshall practiced judicial nationalism; its decisions favored the federal government at the expense of the states. In mcculloch v. maryland (1819), it broadly defined the elastic clause by ruling that a state could not tax a federal bank, and in gibbons v.
