Note: I wrote this for FS 102, Courts and Social Change, my first-year seminar at Allegheny College on the courts, the Constitution, and the limits of judicial power. Lightly formatted for the web, otherwise as submitted.
A Dependent Body
Although there is an impression that courts have the ultimate opinion on constitutional and statutory meaning, the courts are actually a dependent body that is highly impacted by external and internal factors. Externally, the courts are pressured by factors such as Congress, the President, and some would argue the most powerful pressure is even the public. Internally, a Supreme Court justice is limited by the majority opinion, and the Supreme Court and other inferior courts are limited by the past rulings of the Supreme Court, although these can be appealed. Overall, the court's dependency relies on the reactions of external factors and the internal pressure felt to align with said external factors.
Congress
One of the more visible pressures on the court is the presence of Congress. Their powers include but are not limited to making amendments, passing acts and laws to apply the court's decisions, and the removal of justices. Making amendments comes into play when Congress is not happy with the current interpretations of the constitution. These amendments are extremely hard to pass, but the threat of Congress changing the constitution makes the courts dependent on whether or not they can please Congress enough, and can steer decisions (Devins 43). In addition, Congress makes the laws that take the court's decisions into consideration; if a court's decision is completely unaligned with Congress, the new laws may not follow to a tee what the courts envisioned, or may not pass at all. Sometimes Congress will even pass acts that reverse Supreme Court decisions. Finally, the power to impeach keeps the court dependent on Congress's approval, which prevents a tyrannical court. Because of the checks and balances in place, the court cannot simply make harmful decisions without risk of being challenged.
The President
On the executive side, the president's role in limiting the courts shows through powers such as appointing the Supreme Court justices and the ability to weigh in on legislation and veto when necessary (Devins 43). The Supreme Court is completely dependent on the other branches when it comes to adding new justices, as it is an unelected position; the judge needs to be picked by the president and approved by Congress. The executive branch is also in charge of enforcing the laws based on the court's rulings, and if the President vetoes a legislative act, it causes a ripple effect that ultimately puts pressure back on the court's decisions.
The Public
Some would argue that the biggest external force at play is the public itself. Two of the three branches are elected by the public, so if the public is not happy with a court decision, they can elect new people that will put pressure on the courts for change. In a democracy, the will of the public pushes the direction of the government, and the courts must consider their rulings to fit within the limit of public opinion (Devins 31). The court is extremely dependent on public opinion because justices are limited to the confines of contemporary views (Devins 33). Criticizing decisions and arguing for change is an extremely powerful tool the public can use if they are not content with the current constitutional interpretation.
Internal Limits
Internally, the courts are also limited by their fellow justices. By using a majority vote to decide constitutional interpretation, the courts are limited by their ability to convince the majority onto their side; unpopular opinions will not pass if they do not have a majority, which can lead to compromise within the court itself. The courts also have to consider precedent. Although precedent can be overruled and changed, it is limiting as a means of having to acknowledge that there was some past reasoning that needs to be looked into further.
Conclusion
The opinion that the courts have the final word on any decision could not be further from the truth. It would take the whole system of government cooperating completely for the Judiciary Branch to have as much power as people assume, and a completely cooperative government is something America is not likely to ever get. This is not necessarily a negative. Rather, it demonstrates the numerous checks and balances put in place throughout our government, internal and external, that lend for the court's power to be dependent on many factors.
Works Cited
- Devins, Neal, and Louis Fisher. The Democratic Constitution. Oxford University Press, 2004.