Democracy and the Supreme Court

[ohlookitspaul]

I'm trying to write a term paper and I need a little help

Evaluate the ways in which your chosen institution (I chose the Supreme Court) strengthens democracy and evaluate the ways in which your chosen institution weakens democracy. On balance, does your chosen institution mostly promote or mostly inhibit democratic politics in the United States?

any help would be appreciated. thanks.

[aminorthreat55]

I'm too lazy and it's too late for me to get heavily involved in this, but talk about how the justices are supposed to just interpret the laws and how politics shouldn't be involved. I forget who it it was, a law professor at American University I think, in the documentary Unprecedented: The 2000 Election who said something to the effect of "Politics is inextricably bound up in the interpretation of the law". Eh I dunno, but just make sure you talk about that and how the nine justices on the Supreme Court almost always vote with the party that appointed them (except Sandra Day O'Connor, she's the swing vote) but how that shouldn't be the case. You chose a great topic, hence my rant.

[venus/bacchus]

The most obvious route is the Justices aren't appointed by the people, but by the President (and ok'ed by the Senate). When the people whose job it is to interpret the laws aren't chosen by the people who the laws affect, it's undermining democracy in a way.

Also, every appointment is mired in politics. Even if a Senator agreed somewhat with the appointment, there's so much party pressure to vote him/her down solely for the power struggle. When moral decisions and the decisions of what's best for the country come down to whose side you're on, not your own judgment, there's a problem with the system.

They do help democracy though because they are meant (in theory) to uphold the laws we tell them to. They don't have to (obviously, it's their interpretation), but when it comes down to it, they are our "referees" and decide important societal problems based on how we tell them to.

Umm...probably a lot more too, but I'm drawing a blank. You can stretch that into about 12 pages, haha. Good luck

[ohlookitspaul]

i think one of my points on how it upholds democracy is that the supreme court is supposed to make sure that the people of america stay true to core democratic values.

for example, if the majority of americans decided to suppress free speech in some unconstitutional, the supreme court would rule that that would be wrong and would overturn it. in that way, the supreme court isn't designed to listen to the people but to interpret and rule on laws solely on the constitution and the basic principles of democracy. it's sort of like the supreme court is a check on the possibility of majority tyranny too.

does that work? it sort of makes sense to me, but i'm not exactly sure

[venus/bacchus]

i think one of my points on how it upholds democracy is that the supreme court is supposed to make sure that the people of america stay true to core democratic values.

for example, if the majority of americans decided to suppress free speech in some unconstitutional, the supreme court would rule that that would be wrong and would overturn it. in that way, the supreme court isn't designed to listen to the people but to interpret and rule on laws solely on the constitution and the basic principles of democracy. it's sort of like the supreme court is a check on the possibility of majority tyranny too.

does that work? it sort of makes sense to me, but i'm not exactly sure
I know what you're trying to say, but the way you're wording it is counterintuitive. If the people decide they want to suppress democracy, but the Supreme Court doesn't allow it, they'd be suppressing democracy. If they allow it to happen, the result would be suppressing democracy. Seems like a quandry to me. Either way you look at it, they aren't allowing democarcy to take place (although that isn't their job, but that's a different story).

I don't think there are many ways you can look at our current Supreme Court and interpret that they are supporting democracy. Besides, we aren't a democracy anyway, we're a republic.

[ohlookitspaul]

I know what you're trying to say, but the way you're wording it is counterintuitive. If the people decide they want to suppress democracy, but the Supreme Court doesn't allow it, they'd be suppressing democracy. If they allow it to happen, the result would be suppressing democracy. Seems like a quandry to me. Either way you look at it, they aren't allowing democarcy to take place (although that isn't their job, but that's a different story).

I don't think there are many ways you can look at our current Supreme Court and interpret that they are supporting democracy. Besides, we aren't a democracy anyway, we're a republic.
i see what you're saying. if the supreme court tried to "enforce" democracy upon the people, it would be going against the ideals of democracy itself, so it's almost like a catch 22. but i guess that's where there's a difference of opinion on the purpose of the supreme court. i think that the purpose is to ensure that the government makes decisions which adhere to the constitution, which would make the court's decision to overrule the anti-free-speech law the right decision. isn't the point of the justices' neutrality to make sure that the justices aren't affected by the will of the people and to ensure only that democratic principles are followed? it seems almost like it's a "we know what's best for you" thing.

grr this paper is frustrating

[Tanooki Suit]

Seems like a quandry to me.
I'd say a QUAGMIRE, instead. Or maybe VIETNAM. Wait, the first one, yeah.

[ohlookitspaul]

I'd say a QUAGMIRE, instead. Or maybe VIETNAM. Wait, the first one, yeah.
quandary works too.

[(FallFrom)Grace]

since america is a liberal democracy, having a supreme court is an essential element. in theory, it is supposed to provide a clear separation of power from the executive and the judiciary. this is a means to ensure that there are clear limits on governmental power, and to stop any one body from adding to its' power. if you go into liberal theory (the writings of John Locke and JS Mill) they advocate this spearation as the only way to secure democratic control. however, in practice i suppose since the judiciary is appointed by the executive, there are flaws in the system.
i'm only going on what i've been tought in politics A level, hope i kinda helped.

[venus/bacchus]

i see what you're saying. if the supreme court tried to "enforce" democracy upon the people, it would be going against the ideals of democracy itself, so it's almost like a catch 22. but i guess that's where there's a difference of opinion on the purpose of the supreme court. i think that the purpose is to ensure that the government makes decisions which adhere to the constitution, which would make the court's decision to overrule the anti-free-speech law the right decision. isn't the point of the justices' neutrality to make sure that the justices aren't affected by the will of the people and to ensure only that democratic principles are followed? it seems almost like it's a "we know what's best for you" thing.

grr this paper is frustrating
I won't disagree that that's the purpose of the Supreme Court, but that isn't what your paper is supposed to be about. It's supposed to be about how the Supreme Court upholds democracy, and it really doesn't. Like was mentioned above, it ensures that there is a balance of power to avoid tyranny, but it doesn't protect democracy.

"isn't the point of the justices' neutrality to make sure that the justices aren't affected by the will of the people"...that right there says it all. They aren't supposed to be affected by the will of the people, hence our living in a republic as opposed to straight democracy. Their decisions are supposed to be based on rules that the people didn't create, but an elite group (albeit selected by the people) did. Nothing about the Supreme Court upholds the ideals of democracy, it only prevents autocracy.