Constitutional Interpretation
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court and the one that decides and interprets whether laws or acts are constitutional. Simply put, they interpret whether a law is constitutional or not based on what they think the constitution means. Because the constitution doesn’t explicitly or definitively state anything, this interpretation can lead to many differing point of view. Some supreme court members opt for a strict approach to this document, whereby the words of the founders are meant to be taken literally and at face value, and anything that isn’t explicitly expressed in the constitution is not something that can be derived as such. Others argue that the founders couldn’t possibly have put every specific rule or
…show more content…
statement in the constitution, so we must infer and expand what they meant and apply it to modern times. These are just two of the ways in which justices can have different ideas and rulings in the supreme court, and it is the reason why nominations are so hotly contested, as justices appointed serve for life and will generally side with the views of the president who appointed them, shaping the judicial system for decades to come. “The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and its judgement is final.” (267) This, according to Katznelson, is the basic function of the supreme court. They are there to resolve any issues or discrepancies with the laws and to determine what is ultimately legal and constitutional and what isn’t. This process, known as judicial review, “permits the courts to nullify or overturn any federal, state, or public law that conflicts with the Constitution.” (258) As mentioned previously, this task is not an easy one. The Constitution is a complicated document with many outdated rules and assumptions that may not reflect on the direction of society today. Because of this, the court generally has two ways to go when interpreting a ruling. They can either adhere to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, one that takes all the words literally and doesn’t allow for a more modern analysis, or they can bend the rules, so to speak, and infer what the founders really meant when they wrote the document and apply that as best they can to the current situations and culture. Strict Constructionists, as they are known, “often look at the literal meaning of the words in question, or at their historical meaning at the time the law was written.” (Cornell) In most cases, the people who interpret the Constitution this way tend to be the more conservative members of the court.
For example, these conservative justices are more likely to view the second amendment as something that is set in stone with nothing left to be inferred. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. This is the literal meaning of the words, but liberal justices, those who adhere to a looser Constitutional interpretation, argue that we can’t take the words at face value and should consider the context of not only when the Constitution was written, but also of the culture we live in today. We can use the second amendment as a guideline on how to look at laws, but they are not infallible and should be open to modern interpretations. These people are known as loose constructionist, which is “one favoring a liberal construction of the Constitution of the US to give broader powers to the federal government.” (Merriam Webster) As stated, these justices tend to be more liberal and favor a more progressive agenda than strict …show more content…
Constitutionalists. This contrast and clash of styles can shape the direction the court wishes to go, and it is also shown in the two differing styles of judicial activism and judicial restraint.
Judicial activism is the practice of overturning laws passed by elected officials. In this way the courts have more power and influence over the country, as they can shape the laws that are passed to potentially fit their agenda. This activism can take place on both sides of the political spectrum and isn’t specific to one party. Rather, this activism merely refers to a court that exerts more influence and plays a role more in opposition to Congress and the President. Judicial restraint, on the other hand, “occurs when courts defer to the will of the people as expressed through legislative majorities.” (273) One style isn’t necessarily better than the other, as sometimes activism is needed when Congress tries to implement something unconstitutional, regardless of political agenda. Similarly, restraint is needed when a law has been passed that isn’t constitutional. It may not conform to an individual justice’s political views, but as long as it is constitutional this doesn’t matter. The courts are supposed to be unbiased and non-partisan, and even if this doesn’t always happen in practice, it is a good rule to adhere
to. Finally, due to the unwillingness of the Supreme Court to get involved in politics, the court generally doesn’t change the status quo unless it is deemed overtly unconstitutional. Unless a change is absolutely needed, the courts should defer to those in power who have been elected democratically. Because “state law would have to give way when federal and state laws were in conflict”, the Supreme Court possesses the power to change the rules of not just individual states, but the whole country as well. Therefore, the status quo is favored as opposed to a drastic cultural shift in cases when this is possible. Only in extreme circumstances, such as with segregation and slavery, does the court upset the status quo in favor of a more constitutional arrangement. In short, the Supreme Court exists to interpret the Constitution to the best of their ability. Due to the vague nature of the Constitution, this can lead to drastically different interpretations of key issues, such as the second amendment and abortion. Justices are supposed to be separated from the political sphere not only through their thinking and unbiased readings of the law of the land, but also through the benefit of the life terms they serve on the Supreme Court, supposedly free from many of the popular pressures faced by elected leaders such as members of Congress and the President. This is what the basic job of the Supreme Court should be, to interpret and adhere to national laws. However, we can see this isn’t always the case, as in more recent years even the court and the appointment of justices has entered more of a political and partisan arena, one that mirrors the more drastic divide seen in all form of politics at every level. This has arguably impeded the progress made and limits the effectiveness and impartialness that the court ultimately should be known for. In recent years, the courts have become drastically more partisan and influential in the lawmaking of the country. “The courts’ growing involvement in policy and politics is evident in the lack of deference courts now show to federal administrative agencies.” (287) Over and over the supreme court is becoming more of a powerful player on the federal level, shaping policies and agendas more than was done in previous decades. This has led to the courts being open to more criticism and partisanship than before. No longer are judges ushered through congress without much of a fight. Because of the increased partisanship, a president’s appointment to the Supreme Court carries more weight than it might have before, if only due to the fact that judges are now more likely than ever to align their views with the president who appointed them and can influence policy and laws for decades to come. This bitter partisanship and federal judge appointees is apparent in the recent case involving Merrick Garland. When Antonin Scalia died with a year left in the Obama presidency, the conservative leadership in Congress refused to even issue a hearing with this appointee. Their reasoning was that with that election coming up within a year, the people should have a say in who is appointed to the Supreme Court through their pick of the next president. This brings into greater focus some of the problems that can arise with the Supreme Court and the supposed unbiasedness of the judges. On one hand, the president has the power to appoint the justices, so what the Republican leaders did to block Merrick Garland was slimy at best, unconstitutional at worst. The president is the one who picks justices, and while the senate has the right to vet them and approve them, not even holding a hearing for the candidate goes against some basic rules in Congress. On the other hand, the Republicans point that we should wait until the next president is elected, therefore giving the public an indirect say in the direction of the Supreme Court, this point appeals to those who say that there is too much power given to the president and the judges he appoints. Many people find it better if they can have more of a say in who is interpreting laws that will influence the direction they want the country to go. Ultimately, the founders had it right when the elected to have the justices directly appointed as opposed to elected by the people and beholden to the realities of political campaigning. Katznelson mentions that not only will judges campaigning make them more likely to be biased and in the pockets of wealthy donors, “donating to judges’ campaigns [is] the single best investment in American politics because [a] few big spenders can really have an outsize effect.” (263) If judges have to campaign and make promises to donors, they aren’t going to be acting in a way in which they interpret laws the ways in which they believe, but rather interpret them in ways which will benefit those who have given them money. This brings us back to the original argument made by the Republicans, that the public should have more direct say in who is appointed by blocking the confirmation of Merrick Garland until the next president is elected. As we can see, this is not a good idea. Ultimately, the sitting president has the right to select the next Supreme Court justice, especially if there is more than a year left in his term. Otherwise, justices move one step closer to campaigning and being elected, something that would be bad for our democracy. This example is just one of the many ways in which the appointment of federal judges has become more contentious in recent decades. With partisanship seemingly at an alltime high, the stakes are even greater when it comes to shaping the future of the country through the judicial system. The Republicans stopped the confirmation of Merrick Garland, a risky political move, so they could potentially have the chance to elect a conservative justice if a Republican gained power through the election. This strategy worked, as President Trump now has his choice of who to appoint. Expect a lengthy battle from the Democrats, who have just as much at stake in this political game. Contested confirmations appear to be the new norm, with each side refusing to budge and risk the chance of a legal vision being put in place that is opposed to their core values and beliefs. The Supreme Court was, and still is, the judicial body that reviews and interprets laws according to the vision laid out by the founders in the Constitution. They set legal precedents that have lasting consequences on the future of the US. Recently, judicial appointments have become more contested because they reflect the increased partisanship that is dominating Washington. Justices are more likely to align with the President who appointed them, so these appointments have significant consequences for decades to come. With so much at stake, its no wonder that previously simple processes have become so hotly debated. The Supreme Court is supposed to be largely free of political influence, but this has become less and less the case.
statement in the constitution, so we must infer and expand what they meant and apply it to modern times. These are just two of the ways in which justices can have different ideas and rulings in the supreme court, and it is the reason why nominations are so hotly contested, as justices appointed serve for life and will generally side with the views of the president who appointed them, shaping the judicial system for decades to come. “The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and its judgement is final.” (267) This, according to Katznelson, is the basic function of the supreme court. They are there to resolve any issues or discrepancies with the laws and to determine what is ultimately legal and constitutional and what isn’t. This process, known as judicial review, “permits the courts to nullify or overturn any federal, state, or public law that conflicts with the Constitution.” (258) As mentioned previously, this task is not an easy one. The Constitution is a complicated document with many outdated rules and assumptions that may not reflect on the direction of society today. Because of this, the court generally has two ways to go when interpreting a ruling. They can either adhere to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, one that takes all the words literally and doesn’t allow for a more modern analysis, or they can bend the rules, so to speak, and infer what the founders really meant when they wrote the document and apply that as best they can to the current situations and culture. Strict Constructionists, as they are known, “often look at the literal meaning of the words in question, or at their historical meaning at the time the law was written.” (Cornell) In most cases, the people who interpret the Constitution this way tend to be the more conservative members of the court.
For example, these conservative justices are more likely to view the second amendment as something that is set in stone with nothing left to be inferred. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. This is the literal meaning of the words, but liberal justices, those who adhere to a looser Constitutional interpretation, argue that we can’t take the words at face value and should consider the context of not only when the Constitution was written, but also of the culture we live in today. We can use the second amendment as a guideline on how to look at laws, but they are not infallible and should be open to modern interpretations. These people are known as loose constructionist, which is “one favoring a liberal construction of the Constitution of the US to give broader powers to the federal government.” (Merriam Webster) As stated, these justices tend to be more liberal and favor a more progressive agenda than strict …show more content…
Constitutionalists. This contrast and clash of styles can shape the direction the court wishes to go, and it is also shown in the two differing styles of judicial activism and judicial restraint.
Judicial activism is the practice of overturning laws passed by elected officials. In this way the courts have more power and influence over the country, as they can shape the laws that are passed to potentially fit their agenda. This activism can take place on both sides of the political spectrum and isn’t specific to one party. Rather, this activism merely refers to a court that exerts more influence and plays a role more in opposition to Congress and the President. Judicial restraint, on the other hand, “occurs when courts defer to the will of the people as expressed through legislative majorities.” (273) One style isn’t necessarily better than the other, as sometimes activism is needed when Congress tries to implement something unconstitutional, regardless of political agenda. Similarly, restraint is needed when a law has been passed that isn’t constitutional. It may not conform to an individual justice’s political views, but as long as it is constitutional this doesn’t matter. The courts are supposed to be unbiased and non-partisan, and even if this doesn’t always happen in practice, it is a good rule to adhere
to. Finally, due to the unwillingness of the Supreme Court to get involved in politics, the court generally doesn’t change the status quo unless it is deemed overtly unconstitutional. Unless a change is absolutely needed, the courts should defer to those in power who have been elected democratically. Because “state law would have to give way when federal and state laws were in conflict”, the Supreme Court possesses the power to change the rules of not just individual states, but the whole country as well. Therefore, the status quo is favored as opposed to a drastic cultural shift in cases when this is possible. Only in extreme circumstances, such as with segregation and slavery, does the court upset the status quo in favor of a more constitutional arrangement. In short, the Supreme Court exists to interpret the Constitution to the best of their ability. Due to the vague nature of the Constitution, this can lead to drastically different interpretations of key issues, such as the second amendment and abortion. Justices are supposed to be separated from the political sphere not only through their thinking and unbiased readings of the law of the land, but also through the benefit of the life terms they serve on the Supreme Court, supposedly free from many of the popular pressures faced by elected leaders such as members of Congress and the President. This is what the basic job of the Supreme Court should be, to interpret and adhere to national laws. However, we can see this isn’t always the case, as in more recent years even the court and the appointment of justices has entered more of a political and partisan arena, one that mirrors the more drastic divide seen in all form of politics at every level. This has arguably impeded the progress made and limits the effectiveness and impartialness that the court ultimately should be known for. In recent years, the courts have become drastically more partisan and influential in the lawmaking of the country. “The courts’ growing involvement in policy and politics is evident in the lack of deference courts now show to federal administrative agencies.” (287) Over and over the supreme court is becoming more of a powerful player on the federal level, shaping policies and agendas more than was done in previous decades. This has led to the courts being open to more criticism and partisanship than before. No longer are judges ushered through congress without much of a fight. Because of the increased partisanship, a president’s appointment to the Supreme Court carries more weight than it might have before, if only due to the fact that judges are now more likely than ever to align their views with the president who appointed them and can influence policy and laws for decades to come. This bitter partisanship and federal judge appointees is apparent in the recent case involving Merrick Garland. When Antonin Scalia died with a year left in the Obama presidency, the conservative leadership in Congress refused to even issue a hearing with this appointee. Their reasoning was that with that election coming up within a year, the people should have a say in who is appointed to the Supreme Court through their pick of the next president. This brings into greater focus some of the problems that can arise with the Supreme Court and the supposed unbiasedness of the judges. On one hand, the president has the power to appoint the justices, so what the Republican leaders did to block Merrick Garland was slimy at best, unconstitutional at worst. The president is the one who picks justices, and while the senate has the right to vet them and approve them, not even holding a hearing for the candidate goes against some basic rules in Congress. On the other hand, the Republicans point that we should wait until the next president is elected, therefore giving the public an indirect say in the direction of the Supreme Court, this point appeals to those who say that there is too much power given to the president and the judges he appoints. Many people find it better if they can have more of a say in who is interpreting laws that will influence the direction they want the country to go. Ultimately, the founders had it right when the elected to have the justices directly appointed as opposed to elected by the people and beholden to the realities of political campaigning. Katznelson mentions that not only will judges campaigning make them more likely to be biased and in the pockets of wealthy donors, “donating to judges’ campaigns [is] the single best investment in American politics because [a] few big spenders can really have an outsize effect.” (263) If judges have to campaign and make promises to donors, they aren’t going to be acting in a way in which they interpret laws the ways in which they believe, but rather interpret them in ways which will benefit those who have given them money. This brings us back to the original argument made by the Republicans, that the public should have more direct say in who is appointed by blocking the confirmation of Merrick Garland until the next president is elected. As we can see, this is not a good idea. Ultimately, the sitting president has the right to select the next Supreme Court justice, especially if there is more than a year left in his term. Otherwise, justices move one step closer to campaigning and being elected, something that would be bad for our democracy. This example is just one of the many ways in which the appointment of federal judges has become more contentious in recent decades. With partisanship seemingly at an alltime high, the stakes are even greater when it comes to shaping the future of the country through the judicial system. The Republicans stopped the confirmation of Merrick Garland, a risky political move, so they could potentially have the chance to elect a conservative justice if a Republican gained power through the election. This strategy worked, as President Trump now has his choice of who to appoint. Expect a lengthy battle from the Democrats, who have just as much at stake in this political game. Contested confirmations appear to be the new norm, with each side refusing to budge and risk the chance of a legal vision being put in place that is opposed to their core values and beliefs. The Supreme Court was, and still is, the judicial body that reviews and interprets laws according to the vision laid out by the founders in the Constitution. They set legal precedents that have lasting consequences on the future of the US. Recently, judicial appointments have become more contested because they reflect the increased partisanship that is dominating Washington. Justices are more likely to align with the President who appointed them, so these appointments have significant consequences for decades to come. With so much at stake, its no wonder that previously simple processes have become so hotly debated. The Supreme Court is supposed to be largely free of political influence, but this has become less and less the case.