Legitimacy of the JUDICIAL BRANCH [AP Gov Review Unit 2 Topic 9 (2.9)]

Summary

This video from Heimlich's History delves into the U.S. Supreme Court's power and its legitimacy debate. It explains how the Court's ability to establish national policy through judicial review, combined with lifetime appointments, can lead to concerns over potential tyranny. The video outlines the role of precedent in decision-making, the principle of stare decisis, and how it can be overridden based on factors like the Court's ideological composition. It also discusses the impact of presidential appointments on the Court's ideology, from the liberal Burger Court's Roe v. Wade to the conservative Rehnquist Court's restrictions on abortion rights. The video concludes by highlighting the ongoing debate over the Court's legitimacy due to its far-reaching influence on American society.

Takeaways

• 🔍 The video discusses the judicial branch, focusing on the Supreme Court's workings and the debate over its legitimacy.
• 🔧 Federal judges are appointed for life, which anti-federalists feared could lead to tyranny due to the lack of direct public accountability.
• 🔄 The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, allowing it to declare laws unconstitutional, thereby shaping national policy.
• 🔨 Precedent plays a crucial role in the Supreme Court's decision-making, with past decisions serving as templates for future cases.
• 🔧 Stare decisis is the principle that courts follow when considering past precedents, though these can be overturned under certain circumstances.
• 🔄 The ideological makeup of the court, influenced by presidential appointments, can significantly impact the interpretation and application of the Constitution.
• 🔨 The Burger Court was liberal, making decisions like Roe v. Wade, which expanded access to abortion, and United States v. Nixon, limiting executive privilege.
• 🔄 The Rehnquist Court was more conservative, with decisions like Planned Parenthood v. Casey restricting abortion rights and District of Columbia v. Heller expanding gun ownership.
• 🔧 The legitimacy of the Supreme Court can be debated due to its power to influence society through judicial review, despite not having legislative or executive powers.
• 🔨 The video concludes by highlighting the ongoing debate over the Supreme Court's power and the potential for future changes in its decisions based on the ideological leanings of its justices.

Q & A

What is the main focus of the video script?

The main focus of the video script is to explain how the exercise of judicial review in conjunction with life tenure can lead to debate about the legitimacy of the Supreme Court's power.

What was the concern of the anti-federalists regarding lifetime appointments of federal judges?

The anti-federalists were concerned that lifetime appointments of federal judges insulated from the people could lead to tyranny, as they believed judges might be tempted to abuse their power without being accountable to the public.

What is judicial review and why is it significant?

Judicial review is the power of the court to rule on the constitutionality of laws. It is significant because if the court decides a law is unconstitutional, it becomes null and void, allowing the court to establish national policy.

What is the role of precedent in the Supreme Court's decision-making process?

Precedent plays a crucial role in the Supreme Court's decision-making process as it provides a template for future decisions. The court follows the principle of stare decisis, which means that past decisions are considered binding in similar cases.

Can precedents be overturned, and if so, under what circumstances?

Yes, precedents can be overturned. This usually happens when the ideological makeup of the court changes, or if the justices consider the constitution as a living, evolving document rather than a literal interpretation.

What is the significance of the ideological makeup of the Supreme Court?

The ideological makeup of the Supreme Court is significant because it influences the court's decisions. A court with a majority of liberal justices is likely to make different rulings than a court with a majority of conservative justices.

How does the president's appointment of justices impact the Supreme Court's decisions?

The president's appointment of justices can significantly impact the Supreme Court's decisions because the president tends to appoint justices who align with their political ideology, which can influence the court's rulings for years to come.

What was the Burger Court known for, and how did its decisions reflect liberal ideology?

The Burger Court is known for its liberal decisions, such as Roe v. Wade, which repealed state laws prohibiting abortion in the first trimester, and United States v. Nixon, which limited executive privilege.

How did the Rehnquist Court's decisions differ from those of the Burger Court?

The Rehnquist Court was more conservative and made decisions that restricted abortion rights in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and expanded access to gun ownership in District of Columbia v. Heller.

Why do some people question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court's power?

Some people question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court's power because its decisions, made through judicial review and influenced by the ideological makeup of its justices, can have far-reaching effects on the population, leading to debates about whether these decisions are fair or just.

What is the role of the Senate in the appointment of Supreme Court justices?

The Senate plays a crucial role in the appointment of Supreme Court justices as it provides advice and consent to the president's nominations, ensuring a level of scrutiny and approval before a justice can be appointed.