Should the Supreme Court be able to overturn popular opinion? Is that undemocratic? How often and why should the Supreme Court listen to the will of the people?
Should the Supreme Court be able to overturn popular opinion? Is that undemocratic? How often and why should the Supreme Court listen to the will of the people?
Introduction
The Supreme Court is a branch of government that was designed to be above politics. It’s one of the most powerful institutions in the United States, with the ability to overturn laws that it feels are harmful to citizens and their rights. However, sometimes popular opinion trumps justice—and that’s okay!
The Supreme Court is designed to be a non-partisan judicial body.
The Supreme Court is not a political body. It’s not a legislative body, and it’s not an executive one either. Its purpose is to decide cases: whether they’re worth arguing in front of them and what rights they should protect. The best way to understand how this works is by looking at the history of how we got here—and how we got so many crazy laws on our books today!
Sometimes, the Supreme Court chooses not to follow the will of the people, and it should.
Sometimes, the Court chooses not to follow the will of the people. This is when it should be able to do so. For example, if a presidential candidate’s campaign promises are not fulfilled after he or she is elected and becomes president, then he or she may have to face an inevitable backlash from those who voted for him or her in order for their votes’ meaningfulness as a check on executive power (and thus against democracy) to be recognized by courts like ours.
Sometimes the popular opinion is problematic and can be racist, sexist, or homophobic.
The Supreme Court is one of the most powerful institutions in our country. It can make decisions that affect millions of people and set precedents for decades to come. But sometimes, it makes decisions that are unpopular with the majority of Americans. For example:
In 1954, the Supreme Court struck down laws banning interracial marriage as unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment because they were based on race or ethnicity rather than sexual orientation. A majority opinion written by Chief Justice Earl Warren stated that “freedom to marry has long been recognized as one guarantee of freedom after another.” This ruling paved the way for same-sex marriages nationwide but was later overturned by another court ruling upholding state bans on gay marriage (a decision also authored by Chief Justice Warren).
Sometimes, the Supreme Court chooses not to follow the will of the people, and it shouldn’t.
Sometimes, the Supreme Court chooses not to follow the will of the people. This shouldn’t happen.
The Supreme Court is supposed to be a check on democracy and an arbiter of what it means for our laws and rights. But sometimes, they interpret their role as rubber stamping popular opinion or following whatever precedent comes down from on high; this can be dangerous if you think about it: if there were no checks on power (and therefore no checks on corruption), then there would be no way for any group or individual with political influence over elected officials (like legislators) could ever get anything done because they’d always have an army at their disposal ready when needed—an army comprised mainly by powerful corporations who could dictate terms like “vote yes” or “vote no” without any resistance from anyone else except maybe themselves!
The Supreme Court should only be a check on democracy when people’s rights are trampled upon.
The Supreme Court is designed to be a non-partisan judicial body. This means that the justices are chosen based on their ability to make unbiased decisions, rather than political affiliation. However, sometimes the Supreme Court chooses not to follow the will of the people and instead chooses what they think is best for society as a whole. In these cases, it can be argued that this decision has been made by an individual who does not represent all Americans—and therefore should not be trusted with making decisions about our rights and freedoms.
Sometimes popular opinion is problematic and can be racist, sexist or homophobic (some examples include: “All men are created equal” vs “All men are created unequal”).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court should only be a check on democracy when people’s rights are trampled upon. It is an essential part of our system of government that protects us from tyranny and ensures that even if we elect the wrong leaders, they can’t take away our freedom.