The Corner

No Business, Cont’d

From a reader:

Mr. Goldberg,

Your reader writes, “You impugn not the integrity of the justices who rule, but of the system itself which makes those justices the supreme law of the land in determining what the law means. This is 1803 stuff…” 

I seem to recall learning that it’s 1958 stuff.  The Supreme Court presented itself as the final judicial arbitrator (i.e. superior to state and lesser federal courts) of the constitution going back to the Early Republic, to be sure.  It never claimed total judicial supremacy, though, until Cooper v. Aaron.  Even when it comes to the “equivocal bits in the constitution,” the idea that the Supreme Court is the final word on constitutionality isn’t Marshall Court talk, but Warren Court talk.  Namely, it’s total rubbish.

Most Popular

Trump: Yes

Editor’s Note: The following is one of three essays, each from a different perspective, in the latest edition of National Review on the question of whether to vote for President Trump. The views below reflect those of the individual author, not of the NR editorial board as a whole. The other two essays can be ... Read More

Trump: Yes

Editor’s Note: The following is one of three essays, each from a different perspective, in the latest edition of National Review on the question of whether to vote for President Trump. The views below reflect those of the individual author, not of the NR editorial board as a whole. The other two essays can be ... Read More