The Supreme Court: Summary
Article III – 9 justices, 1 chief justice, 8 associate justices – only hear 1% of cases
a. Independence – maintained through the appointment process, tenure and salary arrangements ($274,000)
b. Life tenure
c. Key political role is exercised through judicial review
Appointment process: vacancy (dies/retires/impeached), nomination by president (similar ideological outlook), ABA
rating (not in constitution), senate judiciary committee (experts etc), senate simple majority vote.
STRENGTHS: independence (not expected to be loyal and cannot lose their job due to unpopular decisions),
suitability through SJC and ABA, accountability (senators play a part in the process to ensure some democratic
accountability)
WEAKNESSES: politicised by both the president and the senate (senate can block justices, president nominates –
Kavanaugh and Barrett), media can impact decisions on nominations, imbalanced court (6 conservatives)
Judicial review – not enumerated in the constitution (majority opinion/dissenting opinion)
Overturning of decision by the supreme court is seen as quasi-sovereign – almost irreversible
1. Obergefell v Hodges 2015 – same sex marriage
2. Reversal of Roe v Wade 1973 – lets states decide on abortion laws
3. Gonzales v Oregon 2006 – euthanasia decided by states
POWER: judicial review, independence due to life tenure, interpretation due to vagueness (confirmed in Marbury
Madison 1803 – supreme court grants itself judicial review)
LIMITED POWER: limited to the wording of the constitution (conservatives and judicial restraint limit the power), can
be subjected to external pressures (media/president), limited jurisdiction to constitutional issues only – they can be
undermined by constitutional amendments
JUDICIAL: 9-0 decisions happen 80% of the time showing that decisions are made on the basis of law rather than
political ideology, independence – US v Nixon 1974 (justices that Nixon appointed found against him)
POLITICAL: ideological – Gore v Bush 2000 all conservatives voted against Gore, external influence from
congress/president/pressure groups, ‘legislating from the bench’
Public policy: Citizens united v FEC 2010 – some provisions of the bipartisan campaign reform act violate the 1 st
amendment – allowed super PACs, criticised by Obama’s state of union 2010
Race – civil rights campaigns (Rosa Parks, MLK) resulted in legislation such as the Civil rights Act 1964 and the Voting
rights Act 1965
Affirmative action in college admissions upheld by University of California v Bakke 1978, Grutter v Bollinger
2003, Fisher v University of Texas 2016
Against affirmative action – Schuette v Coalition to defend affirmative action 2014
Interest groups such as NAACP, Black Lives Matter
Immigration reform: Obama filed to pass his DREAM act through congress, but used executive orders to pass DACA
and DAPA to protect children, Texas v US 2016 found DAPA unconstitutional. Trump introduced the Muslim travel
ban, reversed DACA by executive order in 2017, increased deportation. 2017 – Biden reversed many of these reforms
INTEREST GROUPS EFFECTIVE: lots of access point like ACLU, can take cases to the supreme court and provide amicus
curiae briefs, bill of rights entrenches rights so groups can refer to this clearly.
INTREST GROUPS INEFFECTIVE: does not guarantee a change in the law, can sometimes find against civil rights groups
(2012 upholding the rights of a state to carry immigration paperwork), bill of rights also guarantees the rights of a
state.
Article III – 9 justices, 1 chief justice, 8 associate justices – only hear 1% of cases
a. Independence – maintained through the appointment process, tenure and salary arrangements ($274,000)
b. Life tenure
c. Key political role is exercised through judicial review
Appointment process: vacancy (dies/retires/impeached), nomination by president (similar ideological outlook), ABA
rating (not in constitution), senate judiciary committee (experts etc), senate simple majority vote.
STRENGTHS: independence (not expected to be loyal and cannot lose their job due to unpopular decisions),
suitability through SJC and ABA, accountability (senators play a part in the process to ensure some democratic
accountability)
WEAKNESSES: politicised by both the president and the senate (senate can block justices, president nominates –
Kavanaugh and Barrett), media can impact decisions on nominations, imbalanced court (6 conservatives)
Judicial review – not enumerated in the constitution (majority opinion/dissenting opinion)
Overturning of decision by the supreme court is seen as quasi-sovereign – almost irreversible
1. Obergefell v Hodges 2015 – same sex marriage
2. Reversal of Roe v Wade 1973 – lets states decide on abortion laws
3. Gonzales v Oregon 2006 – euthanasia decided by states
POWER: judicial review, independence due to life tenure, interpretation due to vagueness (confirmed in Marbury
Madison 1803 – supreme court grants itself judicial review)
LIMITED POWER: limited to the wording of the constitution (conservatives and judicial restraint limit the power), can
be subjected to external pressures (media/president), limited jurisdiction to constitutional issues only – they can be
undermined by constitutional amendments
JUDICIAL: 9-0 decisions happen 80% of the time showing that decisions are made on the basis of law rather than
political ideology, independence – US v Nixon 1974 (justices that Nixon appointed found against him)
POLITICAL: ideological – Gore v Bush 2000 all conservatives voted against Gore, external influence from
congress/president/pressure groups, ‘legislating from the bench’
Public policy: Citizens united v FEC 2010 – some provisions of the bipartisan campaign reform act violate the 1 st
amendment – allowed super PACs, criticised by Obama’s state of union 2010
Race – civil rights campaigns (Rosa Parks, MLK) resulted in legislation such as the Civil rights Act 1964 and the Voting
rights Act 1965
Affirmative action in college admissions upheld by University of California v Bakke 1978, Grutter v Bollinger
2003, Fisher v University of Texas 2016
Against affirmative action – Schuette v Coalition to defend affirmative action 2014
Interest groups such as NAACP, Black Lives Matter
Immigration reform: Obama filed to pass his DREAM act through congress, but used executive orders to pass DACA
and DAPA to protect children, Texas v US 2016 found DAPA unconstitutional. Trump introduced the Muslim travel
ban, reversed DACA by executive order in 2017, increased deportation. 2017 – Biden reversed many of these reforms
INTEREST GROUPS EFFECTIVE: lots of access point like ACLU, can take cases to the supreme court and provide amicus
curiae briefs, bill of rights entrenches rights so groups can refer to this clearly.
INTREST GROUPS INEFFECTIVE: does not guarantee a change in the law, can sometimes find against civil rights groups
(2012 upholding the rights of a state to carry immigration paperwork), bill of rights also guarantees the rights of a
state.
