Skip to main content

The Real Role of the Supreme Court


 

What It Was Meant to Do—And What It Wasn’t

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
 — Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison (1803)

No branch of the federal government is more misunderstood—or more mythologized—than the Supreme Court. Depending on who’s in power, some Americans see it as a last hope for justice, while others view it as nine unelected overlords deciding national policy. But neither view is entirely accurate.

The truth is simpler and more structural: the Court was never meant to lead the nation. It was designed to limit it. Its job is not to make laws or enforce them—it’s to ensure that all branches of government follow the Constitution.

This post explains the actual role of the Supreme Court, how it fits within the broader system of checks and balances, and what happens when it oversteps—or is ignored.

What the Constitution Says (and Doesn’t Say)

Article III of the Constitution outlines the federal judiciary. It’s the shortest of the first three articles—and intentionally so. The Framers wanted a judiciary that could interpret the law, not dominate the government.

Here's what Article III does:

  • Creates one Supreme Court

  • Allows Congress to create lower federal courts

  • Grants federal courts jurisdiction over cases involving federal law, the Constitution, and certain disputes between states or citizens

And here’s what it does not do:

  • It doesn’t mention judicial review (the power to strike down laws)

  • It doesn’t give the Court authority to create policy

  • It doesn’t place the Court above the other branches

The powers we associate with the Supreme Court today came mostly from precedent, not from the Constitution’s text.

Judicial Review: A Power Claimed, Not Given

In Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall declared that it is the Court’s duty to determine whether laws passed by Congress are constitutional. This idea—judicial review—has become one of the Court’s defining powers.

The logic behind it is sound: a law that violates the Constitution can’t stand. And someone has to decide where that line is. That job fell to the judiciary.

But this power carries enormous responsibility—and it’s easily misunderstood.

What the Court Can—and Can’t—Do

✅ What It Can Do:

  • Hear and decide actual legal cases (not hypotheticals)

  • Interpret laws in light of the Constitution

  • Strike down federal or state laws that violate the Constitution

  • Check the other branches when they exceed their powers

❌ What It Can’t Do:

  • Make or pass laws

  • Enforce its own rulings (it depends on the executive branch)

  • Issue advisory opinions or weigh in on political questions

  • Rewrite laws to “fix” policy failures

In short: the Court interprets. It does not legislate, campaign, or command.

Why the Court Was Made Independent

The Framers gave federal judges life tenure (during “good behavior”) and protection against pay cuts to shield them from political pressure. The idea was to make the judiciary a guardian of the Constitution, even when that meant making unpopular decisions.

But judicial independence is not judicial supremacy. The Court was meant to defend the structure—not define the culture.

When the Court Oversteps

The Supreme Court has, at times, drifted beyond its role:

  • Roe v. Wade (1973) invented a right not found in the text, bypassing state legislatures

  • Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) denied citizenship to Black Americans and helped push the country toward civil war

  • NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) reinterpreted a penalty as a tax to save legislation Congress hadn’t properly framed

These cases reflect a deeper danger: when the Court begins legislating from the bench, it becomes an unelected super-legislature.

That undermines the Constitution’s structure and erodes the legitimacy of the law itself.

When the Court Is Ignored

The opposite is just as dangerous.

When presidents defy court rulings or Congress shrugs off judicial limits, it signals a collapse in constitutional respect. The Court’s authority only works when the other branches—and the people—agree that the Constitution is still the supreme law of the land.

A republic lives or dies on the public’s willingness to accept legal outcomes even when they’re inconvenient.

Why It Still Matters

In a polarized era, people often treat the Court like a political weapon. They cheer when it “rules their way” and rage when it doesn’t. But that misses the point.

The Court’s job isn’t to side with public opinion. It’s to uphold the Constitution—even when it hurts.

When respected, the Court protects rights, restrains power, and reminds every branch that the rules still matter.
 When abused or politicized, it becomes just another tool of partisanship.

Next: The Electoral College – Misunderstood by Design

In the next post, we’ll tackle one of the most debated aspects of the Constitution—the Electoral College. What it is, why the Founders created it, and why calls to abolish it often ignore the federal structure that holds the republic together.

Comments

Post a Comment

I welcome respectful, thoughtful feedback—especially from those who care about education, history, and the values that shape our society. Whether you’re an educator, student, parent, or curious reader, feel free to leave a comment or question below. Let’s keep the conversation sharp, civil, and grounded in truth.

Popular posts from this blog

Order Lost: The Silent Erosion of Authority in Our Schools

  Across the country, the authority that once anchored public education is quietly eroding. Classrooms that were once centers of learning are now often battlegrounds of defiance, disrespect, and disruption. Teachers are undermined, administrators are paralyzed by flawed discipline reforms, and parents increasingly act as adversaries rather than allies. Meanwhile, students who come prepared to learn are forced to endure environments defined more by chaos than by opportunity. Order Lost: The Silent Erosion of Authority in Our Schools examines how inconsistent discipline, administrative avoidance, cultural shifts, and the collapse of parental accountability have combined to create a behavioral crisis that threatens the very foundation of public education. Restoring order is not an optional reform—it is the essential first step toward reclaiming schools as places where real learning, growth, and respect can occur. Order Lost: The Silent Erosion of Authority in Our Schools “I don’t give...
Post a Comment
Read more

How Laws Are Supposed to Be Made

  What It Means When That Process Is Ignored “It will be of little avail to the people… if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.” — James Madison, Federalist No. 62 Most Americans have no idea how a bill becomes law—and that’s not entirely their fault. Somewhere between the civics textbook version and today’s backroom legislating, the process has become bloated, bypassed, or buried under bureaucracy. But if we don’t know how laws are supposed to be made , we won’t notice when they’re being written in the dark, rushed through without debate, or handed off to unelected agencies. A republic depends on law that is open, accountable, and deliberate —not law by fiat. This post walks through the real legislative process as the Constitution designed it , and highlights where modern politics has drifted—and why that drift threatens liberty. The Constitutional Blueprint: Deliberate and Accountable The Founders placed lawmaking i...
Post a Comment
Read more

When One Judge Blocks the Nation: Rethinking Judicial Power in America

  Imagine a single federal judge in one state issuing a ruling that halts immigration reform, stops pandemic response measures, or freezes student loan relief for the entire country. Sound extreme? It's already happening. This growing judicial tool is called a nationwide injunction—a court order that blocks a federal law or executive action across all 50 states. In recent years, lower court judges have used this power to halt presidential actions under Obama, Trump, and Biden. These rulings didn’t come from the Supreme Court or even appellate courts, but from district-level judges, often appointed to serve a single region. That’s not how the judicial branch was designed to work. Lower Courts Have a Job—But It’s Not to Govern the Country Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts have the power to interpret laws and resolve disputes. Lower courts (district and circuit courts) are essential to this process. They hear cases, apply precedent, and enforce rights within their ...
Post a Comment
Read more