The Constitution's True Owners
· news
The Shadow Judiciary: When Nine Became One
The notion that nine unelected justices have the final say in interpreting the Constitution has been gaining traction for decades. However, this concept’s roots run deeper than many realize. It’s not just about the Supreme Court’s increasing assertiveness; it’s also a story of how the American people’s understanding of their role in shaping the Constitution has eroded over time.
Historians often point to Marbury v. Madison (1803) as the moment when judicial review became entrenched, but this narrative overlooks the fact that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison themselves saw the court’s decision as a necessary check on executive power. The Supreme Court’s authority was gradually consolidated over the 19th century, with landmark cases like Dred Scott (1857) and Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) solidifying its status as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional meaning.
The court’s claim to neutrality and legitimacy is built on a fragile premise: that it’s somehow above politics, while Congress and the President are mired in partisanship. This narrative ignores the fact that Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, often with little scrutiny or accountability. Their decisions, which can have far-reaching consequences for American society, are frequently made without any direct input from the people they’re supposed to serve.
The current crisis of faith in the judiciary is not new; it’s been building for years, fueled by high-profile cases like Citizens United (2010) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which have polarized public opinion and eroded trust in the court’s ability to interpret the Constitution in a way that reflects the values of “We the People.” Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern argue that this crisis presents an opportunity for the American people to reclaim their power and take control of the Constitution’s meaning.
Restoring popular constitutionalism would require a nuanced understanding of the Constitution’s role in American life. It’s not as simple as having Congress or the President simply override Supreme Court decisions, which risks creating a constitutional void where no branch of government has the final say. Instead, Lithwick and Stern suggest acknowledging the importance of judicial review while recognizing its limitations.
As Kramer notes, the concept of judicial supremacy is not just about the Supreme Court; it’s also about how Americans have come to view their relationship with the document. For too long, we’ve accepted the notion that nine unelected justices have a monopoly on constitutional interpretation without stopping to consider whether this aligns with the Founders’ original intentions.
The road ahead won’t be easy. It will require a fundamental shift in how we think about the Constitution and its relationship to our democracy. But as Lithwick and Stern argue, it’s also an opportunity for Americans to reclaim their power and reassert their role as the ultimate guardians of constitutional meaning.
The stakes are high, but so too is the potential reward – for a democracy that works for all its citizens, not just the nine unelected justices who claim to speak for them all. The American people have a choice: continue down the path of judicial supremacy or reclaim their power and take control of the Constitution’s meaning.
Reader Views
- CMColumnist M. Reid · opinion columnist
The Supreme Court's claim of neutrality and legitimacy hinges on its self-proclaimed role as a check on executive power, but what about Congress? The court's authority is often justified by its historical precursors, such as Marbury v. Madison, but this narrative overlooks the fact that legislative branches have consistently ceded their constitutional responsibilities to the judiciary. A more nuanced understanding of the Constitution's true owners would acknowledge the interplay between all three branches of government and recognize that judicial overreach is often facilitated by legislative acquiescence rather than opposition.
- ADAnalyst D. Park · policy analyst
The notion that nine unelected justices have absolute authority over the Constitution is a relic of a bygone era, but one that still carries significant weight in our contemporary politics. The crux of the issue lies not just with the court's decisions, but also with the role of the executive branch in appointing these justices for life, often without sufficient scrutiny or accountability. This lack of transparency undermines the very notion of an impartial judiciary and raises questions about the checks on power in our system – a crucial aspect that warrants more attention in discussions about the Constitution's true owners.
- RJReporter J. Avery · staff reporter
The Constitution's True Owners: A More Fundamental Problem While the article astutely highlights the judicial system's increasing detachment from the people, I believe it overlooks a crucial aspect of the problem. The Supreme Court's claim to neutrality is further complicated by its own internal dynamics, such as the influence of ideological blocs and the tendency towards institutional self-preservation. The true challenge lies not just in questioning the court's legitimacy, but also in grappling with the reality that our elected officials have ceded significant power to an unelected branch, effectively creating a system where nine individuals can wield more authority than the 535 members of Congress combined.