Supreme Court Limitations

Americans have always sought to evade an imbalance of power amongst the government. However, the judicial branch savors prominence due to the Constitution and the American people’s disposition towards surrendering their fate entirely to elected officials. As a result, the court, assumes the primary institution to interpret the law of the land. Yet technical, political, and institutional limitations have been established to restrict the power of the supreme court.
Chief Justice Jay believed courts only retain the right to interpret the law within context of a case or controversy. Hypothetically entrapping the court’s power to lend advisory opinions concerning the law. Even so, this limitation is not applied to multiple state courts making it more of
Requirements for jurisdiction are tightened and loosened on the interpretation of the court. In short these technical limitations relinquish an inappropriately large spectrum for which courts can alter requirements for the doctrine of standing.
What are the political limitations of the supreme court? Via, constitutional amendment, Congress and the states retain the ability to alter the supreme court’s interpretation of the constitution. However, amending the constitution is arduous and nearly chimerical. Reversal through constitutional amendment has only occurred four times in the nation’s history. First being Chisholm v. Georgia, a case in which Georgia received supplies from a merchant, but failed to deliver payment. After the merchant’s death, his successor brought the case to court in order to collect the payment. In a four to one decision the court ruled in favor of Chisholm. Ensuing the supreme court’s ruling arose the Eleventh Amendment preventing federal courts jurisdiction over cases between states and citizens of other states. After which all pending court actions from Chisholm v. Georgia were dismissed. Later the fourteenth amendment would nullify the infamous Dred Scott