Supreme Court Models

1. Supreme Court justices have a serious job of determining if something is unconstitutional or not. As with any big decision, there is a precise manor in which the justices decide weather an act is unconstitutional. There are three models that’s the courts follow. The first is the legal model. The legal model states that the court can base their rulings off of the previous rulings of the lower courts. The positive of this model is that the Supreme Court justices have a good background on what went on in the previous court and they can use that in order to interpret the constitution. The negative of this model is that the justices don’t have a clean interpretation of what happened. They are basing all of their knowledge on the last judges ruling,
which could interfere with their judgment. The second model is the attitudinal model. “The attitudinal model says that justices make decisions solely based on their ideologies. Conservative justices interpret the Constitution in a conservative way. Liberal justices interpret the Constitution in a liberal way.” (Dr. Mitchell 2016) I honestly can’t find a positive in this explanation because it seems very biased that what the justices assume is “wrong” the public could assume is “right.” I believe this system just leads to conflict within the court and outside because the justices can’t justify their decision. Their only explanation would be “because I believe this is the right decision”. If it were my rights on the line, I wouldn’t find that justifiable. The third model is the strategic model. “This explanation states that justices make decisions strategically based on how they think their colleagues will decide and even how they think their decisions will be received by the public. In the strategic model, justices do try to achieve their ideological policy goals but they are constrained by the behavior and expectations of others.” (Dr. Mitchell 2016) The only weakness to this explanation is that they could get too caught up in each other’s decision that they get constrained by the others. I personally believe that the strategic model is the best theory because the justices put together all the factors it takes to make an educated decision. They are able to use their own ideology, but they also take the peoples reaction into account.
2.
Even though it doesn’t seem like a big deal, public support of the Supreme Court is a very big deal. “If the public respects the court, then the court will have an easier time getting the public to accept their decisions. Furthermore, other branches of government will be more likely to listen to the court if the court has the public’s support.” (Cengage 2016) This quote from the Cengage power point hits the nail on the head when it comes to public support. If the Court didn’t have the support of the public, then the public wouldn’t follow the decision of the Courts. With the support of the public, then the Supreme Court has a better chance of getting the support from Congress. Public opinion defiantly shapes the decisions the courts make. Without the support of the public, then why would the public follow the laws the courts make? The Supreme Court has to put into account how the people will react and if their support is strong enough to follow through with the ruling. The courts should listen to the public because, as stated before, if the courts have the peoples support then they will have Congress’s support. The Supreme Court needs to listen to the public’s opinion because it gives them a chance to further win the publics support. The role of the government is to make policies and rulings that will essentially help our country. When the courts listen to the public then it makes it easier for them to decide their
rulings.
3.
One of the most popular court cases is McCulloch v. Maryland. In 1819 there wasn’t much judicial power because the Supreme Courts were still getting settled in, and the public was still skeptical in weather they could trust them or not. The McCulloch v. Maryland court case was in the Marshall Court. John Marshall was the chief justice at this time and he is the one who made the Supreme Court a serious player in government. Marshall Court had a pattern of expanding national power. “The decision in McCulloch v. Maryland expanded national power in two ways…” (Geer, Schiller, Segal, and Herrara 2016) The decision in McCulloch v. Maryland, allowed the national government to the right to create a bank. This decision limited state power by, “denying the states the authority to tax activities of the national government.” (Geer, Schiller, Segal, and Herrara 2016) The decision of the court was justified by their interpretation of the Constitution. “In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice Marshall, the Court ruled that the Bank of the United States was constitutional and that the Maryland tax was unconstitutional. Concerning the power of Congress to charter a bank, the Court turned to the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8, which expressly grants Congress the power to pass laws "necessary and proper" for the execution of its "enumerated powers."” (McBride 2006) This court case is one of the most important because it established the ways the Supreme Court
would interpret the Constitution for years to come. “By establishing judicial review, expanding national power, and ensuring the uniformity of federal law, the Marshall Court set the United States on the path to a strong and unified nation.” (Geer, Schiller, Segal, and Herrara 2016)