Page 53 - Demo

6.4 %u2022 Judicial Decision-making and Checks%u00a0on the Judicial Branch 205The Supreme Court and PolicymakingThe Supreme Court has the unique power to use precedent to shape policymaking. Yet there are constraints on the Supreme Court%u2019s authority.Limitations on the Power of the Supreme CourtThe legislative and executive branches have several powers that serve as a check on the power of the federal judiciary. The president nominates justices, and the Senate confirms them. This appointment process serves as a check on the federal courts by potentially shifting the ideological balance of the judiciary.Further, Congress sets the size of the Supreme Court and establishes other federal courts. Congress can enact legislation to modify or remove the Court%u2019s jurisdiction, limiting the kinds of cases it may hear on appeal. Congress and the states may also act together to amend the Constitution to overcome a judicial decision, although this is a difficult process.In addition, Congress may write legislation modifying the impact of a Supreme Court decision. For example, on January 29, 2009, President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act,75 restoring the protection against pay discrimination. The Lilly%u00a0Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was a response to the Supreme Court%u2019s decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co, in which the Supreme Court disallowed a claim for wage discrimination based on gender.76One of the biggest constraints on the power of the Court is that it often must turn to the other two branches to enforce to its rulings. When a Court goes against the will of the president or Congress, the other branches may delay implementation of the decision or even might ignore or defy the Court entirely.In 1832, near the end of his long term as chief justice, John Marshall once again challenged a president%u2014this time Andrew Jackson%u2014in Worcester v. Georgia.77 The case focused on federalism, specifically which level of government, state or federal, had authority over the treaties and laws covering Native American territories. Samuel Worcester, a missionary, had been arrested under a Georgia law for %u201cresiding within the limits of the Cherokee Nation without a license%u201d and was convicted and sentenced to %u201chard labour in the penitentiary for four years.%u201d78 The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government, not the states, had authority over Native American territories and declared the Georgia law unconstitutional. In doing so, Marshall sought to protect the rights of Native Americans secured by the treaties governing their autonomy. President Jackson, who, according to one historian, %u201chad almost as little regard for the Supreme Court%u201d as he had for Native Americans, is reported to have exclaimed, %u201cWell, John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!%u201d79 Georgia continued to enforce its laws, and Jackson pursued his destructive policies toward the Cherokee Nation. This historical example is one of the relatively rare instances when a president defiantly refused to enforce a decision by the Supreme Court.Even when the other two branches do not openly defy the Supreme Court, their lack of support of its rulings can limit the Court%u2019s power in setting national policy. The Supreme Court%u2019s landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education (1954)80 declaring segregated educational facilities unconstitutional was not implemented for more than a decade. As political scientist Gerald Rosenberg concluded, %u201cFor ten years the Court spoke forcefully while Congress and the executive did little.%u201d81 It was only after the executive and the legislative branches began to use their own powers in shaping civil rights policy that desegregation gained momentum. The civil rights movement will be discussed in detail in Chapter 9.%u00a9 Bedford, Freeman & Worth Publishers. For review purposes only. Do not distribute.