SCOTUS Nominations
Marbury V Madison (1803) changed the game. It was a seminal case that supplied the Supreme Court of the United States the power to be in the same league as the two big hitters of the country, the Executive and Legislative branches. Almost sixteen years after signing of the US Constitution, this ruling by the “Marshall Court” changed the power forever in our government. The only comparable Supreme Court ruling that has had the impact of Marbury v Madison, is possibly Brown v Board of Education. (1954)
John Adams was the President, and his Vice-President Thomas Jefferson ran against him for the office. Jefferson won a hotly contested race. This wouldn’t happen today. But, before Jefferson took office in March of the following year, Adams started nomination as many of his party’s (Federalist) judges to judgeship throughout all the country’s courts. President Adams appointed his then Secretary of State, John Marshall, to the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Not long after Marshall’s appointment a fundamental question arose that would shape the three branches of government through today: If the Legislative branch enacts a law that’s in conflict with the United States Constitution, which is more important and prevailing? This would forever be decided in the foundational case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), which in essence involved a controversy of last-minute political appointments.
The background of the case starts with a little-known Federalist, William Marbury of the District of Columbia. He was appointed for the position of Justice of the Peace of DC, created by Congress in the last days of the Adams Presidency. But time ran out on the appointment being confirmed before Jefferson took office on inauguration day. Jefferson subsequently refused to allow the nomination to go forward because he wanted his political party to get the Judicial positions.
Marbury, and a few other upset appointees, invoked an act of Congress to challenge for their appointments to go through. This act was to authorize the Supreme Court to issue orders against the government officials refusing to approve the appointments. Marbury pushed the Supreme Court to pursue this against the new secretary of state, James Madison, who had the documents and refused to use them.
John Marshall, Chief Justice of the court, observed that this act of Congress that Marbury was seeking in suing in the Supreme Court was in conflict with Article III of the US Constitution, which doesn’t authorize such lawsuits. In early Spring 1803, the Supreme Court delivered its opinion on the fundamental question at hand. Must the court follow the law or the US Constitution? The SCOTUS ruled, and is explained in Marshall’s scathing opinion, that the Constitution is the “fundamental and paramount law of the nation’ and that any act “of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.’ What this in reality means is that any law that conflicts with the US Constitution is invalid.
This decision in Marbury v. Madison established the SCOTUS and its power of judicial review from that day forward. Judicial review was understood as the power to declare congressional acts invalid if they violate or are in conflict with the US Constitution. Many believe this was the ruling that equaled the three branches of government for the first time.
We are in the nomination process of Amy Coney Barrett, which will be confirmed by the 2020 Senate. It will be the twenty-ninth time in our country’s history that a President in their last year of a four-year term has nominated someone for the SCOTUS. This isn’t abnormal, and is exactly what Article 2, Section 2 of the US Constitution says the Chief Executive should and has the authority to do. The Legislative Branch then has the power to “advise and consent” the nominee. This has been the practice for over 230 years.
This is a crucial time in our nations highest court. The non-political branch is under more pressure to contort itself to the ideologies of the two largest political parties in our country. This isn’t the job or the reason for the court. As described in “judicial review” the job of the court is to determine cases brought forth based on their merit; constitutionally and nothing more. Does the law or issue conflict with the US Constitution is their job and not what a party feels is best for the country based on their ideologies.
Many cases are and have been emotionally charged cases. But, when we as a young nation understood there had to be” separation of powers” that have a specific “checks and balances” and these branches have to be equal to the other, a great experiment began to work. Politics should be out of the spectrum of the Judicial Branch. They shouldn’t have to answer the political questions of the day, but only have to answer the foundational question of constitutionality of a law. People aren’t taught the “separate but equal” aspect of the US Constitution as they should. It is by far the greatest decision made by the founders to keep one body from being more powerful than another. Let’s never forget the roles that all three have. The Legislative writes the laws, the Executive signs or veto’s the laws, and the Judicial determines the laws to be constitutional or unconstitutional. Period. The quicker we understand the US Constitution and the specific roles of the three branches, the better we accept this great experiment, became an even better experience for us all.
As a coach I have to decide who plays, which plays to run, the defense and special teams. There is also the rules we have to follow. There is a game time and date. We need chain gangs, clock operators, and stat people. Everyone has a role. In our government the three branches have their own roles. It is not only important but crucial to the fabric of the American system to allow the different branches of government to do their jobs. It works. It has been tested. It will prevail.
The Coach, John Brent
Originally published at https://shop.thecoachandthevet.com on October 21, 2020.
