Very interesting article from The Stanford Daily with short recap on multiple instances where people challenged Supreme Court decisions. See author information at the end.

Excerpt below:

Resistance to the Supreme Court’s authority is nothing new.  In 1803, the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison established the Court’s power to review the constitutionality of actions by other branches of government.  But the case also highlighted the Court’s inherent weakness.  The lawsuit asked whether President Thomas Jefferson’s new Republican administration had to honor the last-minute appointment of a justice of the peace by the outgoing Federalist president.  Chief Justice John Marshall knew that if the Court ordered the Jefferson administration to install Marbury as justice of the peace (as he’d been promised by John Adams), Jefferson would simply refuse to follow the ruling.  So Marshall wrote an opinion declaring that courts have ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution, but declining – on technical legal grounds – to actually order Jefferson’s administration to grant Marbury his position.

Resistance to the interpretive authority of the Supreme Court has occurred regularly ever since.  After an adverse decision in Worcester v. Georgia (another Chief Justice Marshall classic), President Andrew Jackson is said to have responded, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”  In the 1950s, the Court outlawed school segregation in Brown v. Board of Education, then had to issue another opinion in Cooper v. Aaron calling for “the obedience of the States,” after southern states asserted the power to ignore Supreme Court decisions with which they disagreed.  Cooper asserts judicial supremacy – that is, the power of the Supreme Court to serve as the ultimate authority over the meaning of the Constitution, binding on both the federal government and state governments.

These cases of resistance demonstrate the judiciary’s weakness as an independent branch of government.  Judges must rely on other government officials – in the executive or legislative branches of the federal government, or in state or local governments – to implement and enforce their orders.  When those other divisions of government disagree with the Court’s decision, the Court may be forced to curtail its own actions (as in Marbury). Or the Court might hope that it has enough support among other divisions of government to carry out its directives (as in Brown, which was enforced by President Eisenhower’s deployment of the Army’s 101st Airborne Division to ensure the African American students’ safety, and later bolstered by congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act).

Of course, the judicial branch has substantial powers to encourage compliance. For one, lower courts may hold steadfast objectors in contempt of court. Such specific contempt orders are almost certain to be enforced, therefore helping to bring intransigent officials into compliance. That’s how Kim Davis wound up in jail. Courts also have the lesser-known ability to fashion other kinds of solutions. For instance, the judge in Kentucky could have forbidden Davis from issuing marriage licenses, effectively transferring her power to another state official or ordered the county to withhold some portion of Davis’s salary attributable to marriage-licensing.

But the fact remains that these solutions are, in the end, words on a page. When push comes to shove, somebody other than a judge must escort the holdout to jail.  Thus, at bottom, the Court’s decisions are constrained by the views of other branches and levels of government.  Unless the Court stays within the bounds of what other government officials consider plausible, legitimate views, it is powerless to carry out its holdings.  So while the Court – comprised of unelected, lifetime-tenured judges – is often vilified as undemocratic, it is ultimately accountable to the people and their representatives.

The Supreme Court (and conventional wisdom) would say that everyone does have to follow the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution.  But challenges to that view – from history, legal scholars, and modern Kim Davises and Ted Cruzes – abound.  And despite the controversy and occasional firestorm, that debate is probably a good thing. It reminds us that the Court, with “neither force nor will,” takes part in an “ongoing dialogue between and among the branches of Government.”  In the end, it’s your democratically elected representatives who shape what vision of the law is followed.

Brittany Jones is the president of the Stanford Law Review. Alex Twinem is one of the Stanford Law Review’s managing editors. Michael Qian is one of the Stanford Law Review’s executive editors. Danny Kane is one of the Stanford Law Review’s senior editors. Contact them at bjones2 ‘at’, atwinem ‘at’, mfqian ‘at’, and dkane ‘at’

Below is a comment that was left to this article, and my reply to it.

The authors fail to acknowledge a fundamental proposition of American government: what the people want is not always right. By claiming that political power ultimately rests in the hands of elected officials, the authors ignore the purpose of institutions such as the Bill of Rights, which exist to prevent the mob rule the Founding Fathers so feared. The Supreme Court and the rest of our judicial system exist partially to protect the American people from this “tyranny of the majority.” By claiming that the debate over whether we have to obey the decisions of the Court is a “good thing”, the authors ignore the nightmare the Founding Fathers foresaw when the will of the people seeks to deny others the rights guaranteed to all humanity.

  • You fail to acknowledge that sodomy is not marriage, it’s not a fundamental right, homosexuality is not normal, and the Founding Fathers, had they known that someday, part of the American public would be so degenerate in terms of sexuality, that they would claim this is what the Constitution they were instituting was stipulating, they would have explicitly written safeguards in the Constitution to never let liberals claim this is what the Constitution says in terms of rights, and to protect decent people like Kim Davis from being persecuted and thrown in jail when liberals use the State for such purposes.
    In fact, they did write the 1A, but now liberals are using their distorted claims of the 14th to destroy the rights guaranteed by the 1A and the rest of the Constitution.


Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: