Anthony Kennedy Quotes

This concept of balance of power and the equal role of the judiciary is actually quite rare. Even in Parliamentary democracies the parliament can override any court interpretation. In England, the upper legislative house, the House of Lords, actually serves as the nation’s highest or supreme court. And these “Law Lords” can override all regular judicial bodies.

Some of the Founding Fathers did not conceive of the kind of judiciary where Federal courts could nullify an act of the Congress by declaring a law unconstitutional. Morris was one. Others did. The Constitution is not very explicit on this point, but the nation has settled with a process that would have surprised Morris and a few others.

The New Deal liberal Democrats had complained that the Supreme Court was making national policy and law and not interpreting law. They tried to pack the Supreme Court by adding more justices who would be more sympathetic to the New Deal. (See {587549}.) At the beginning of the 21st century it was the conservative Republicans who were making the same claim that the Supreme Court was making law and not interpreting it. The pattern seems to be when the court votes for your side, they are interpreting the law. When they vote for the other side, they are activist—making law improperly.

One of the conundrums of our constitutional system is who has the last word as to what the Constitution means. Essentially it is the judicial branch headed by the Supreme Court. But there are those who believe that the current popular majority should have a say in what is or is not constitutional. If so the legislative branch should have the last word. Still others say that the President is the only person elected by ALL the people, so his opinion most reflects the will of the public. And then there are most who argue that the Constitutional system was created just to avoid the power of currently popular majorities, and the courts should decide based on the Constitution itself. So the statement has very little meaning except that Phillips thinks that the courts have too much power. Whoever gets to decide what is or is not Constitutional will be accused of being “over” the Constitution by those who don’t like the decisions. In our system, that is the courts.

Barstow the Democratic Governor who had no serious opposition in 1853 found himself challenged for reelection by Coles Bashford of the new Republican Party. The Board of Canvassers reported that Governor Barstow had won reelection but by less than 200 votes in the whole state. The Republicans charged that there had been fraud in some of the rural districts and petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court which ruled that nonexistent precincts had indeed voted for the Governor. The Barstow however refused to recognize the decisions of the court claiming that the court had no jurisdiction over the Board of Canvassers who were part of the executive branch. The Republicans held their own inauguration and two men claimed to be Governor. But the Governor claimed that the state constitution did not give the court any authority to deal with the crisis, He even called out the State Militia to maintain his office and intimidate the Supreme Court and keep the “other governor” from the state house. Nonetheless the court ruled that even the Governor had to obey the law and the Supreme Court would determine what the law was. Barstow finally “resigned.” See {587917} & {587914}.

Barstow the Democratic Governor who had no serious opposition in 1853 found himself challenged for reelection by Coles Bashford of the new Republican Party. The Board of Canvassers reported that Governor Barstow had won reelection but by less than 200 votes in the whole state. The Republicans charged that there had been fraud in some of the rural districts and petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court which ruled that nonexistent precincts had indeed voted for the Governor. The Barstow forces however refused to recognize the decisions of the court claiming that the court had no jurisdiction over the Board of Canvassers who were part of the executive branch. The Republicans held their own inauguration and two men claimed to be Governor. But the Governor claimed that the state constitution did not give the court any authority to deal with the crisis, He even called out the State Militia to maintain his office and intimidate the Supreme Court and keep the “other governor” from the state house. Nonetheless the court ruled that even the Governor had to obey the law and the Supreme Court would determine what the law was. Barstow finally “resigned.” See {587915} & {587914}.

The reference was to the Presidential power to appoint Supreme Court Justices who will serve beyond his term.

Jefferson’s fears were later reinforced by John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison {606468}

Hatch was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time.

In many nations, there is little judicial independence from the government. Judicial decisions that thwart government sometimes produce retaliation ranging from reducing the pay or staff of judges, threatened investigations and impeachment even arrest and execution---sometimes by government ‘death squads’. Even in the United States, the beginning of the 21st century, was fraught with so many examples of judicial intimidation threats, that two Supreme Court justices began speaking throughout the country to educate the public to this problem. In general, the more democratic and free a nation is, the more frequently the courts will disallow activities of the executive and even the legislature.

In 2002 the corrupt Indonesian Courts ruled that a very solvent Canadian company Manulife was bankrupt so that others could get control. The international financial and political community wanted the Indonesian government to intervene and reverse the rulings, but historically the courts had no independence and had been tools of the government.

Referring to the Brown v. Board of Education, the Topeka, KS, Supreme Court school desegregation decision: