Supremely Confused about the Supreme Court

The country is alight with the discussion about Brett Kavanaugh, and as with any Supreme Court nominee, heated banter has come on the role of the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) at large. Kavanaugh is clear that he does his best to interpret the Constitution “as written,” so many hope that Kavanaugh might be a remedy from a court that has overstepped its bounds.
The nomination is important, and as someone who is wishy-washy about a lot of things, I thought it was also important to explore this topic for my edification. This is an issue that’s in my face all the time; why shouldn’t I do my best to understand it?
On the right, I hear so many complaints about “legislating from the bench,” but I am having trouble understanding what is really meant by that, and if there is widespread validity to the claim. I hope to gain a better understanding in the future and of the Supreme Court in general.
Being completely frank, it can feel daunting to think about the Supreme Court. How deep am I expected to dig to understand its power, and to understand the proper use of this power? How am I supposed to determine which cases were plagued with “judicial activism” and which were fair readings of the Constitution?
Do I need to read all of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers to see the context in which the court was established? Do I need to read the pro and dissenting opinions for every controversial court case? Do I need to go to law school?
Well, this timeline’s version of Collin has no plans for law school. But I do know that the Constitution was fought over bitterly by people with wildly different views on government, so there is validity in holding to it these years later as a neutral document. The whole discussion on judicial activism and the proper actions of a court have prompted me to take a constitutional law class next year.
At the very least, the opinions pages of The New York Times and Wall Street Journal don’t seem to cut it. I really don’t feel satisfied with only reading the opinions of others on this issue, because at some point it seems wise to cut straight to the source. So in many senses, I don’t have the answer to these questions, and I suspect many are with me on this.
Going back to those source documents, Alexander Hamilton had this to say on the courts of the United States: “It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.”
Interpretation always has bias; there are no two ways about it. Ideally, those nine individuals would not need to make decisions that affect more than 300 million people so broadly. But we live in a world where checks and balances are essential.
We live in a democracy, but to what extent do we allow the courts to go against the democratic process by waiting for Congress to make laws, which they then interpret, if democracy is doing the ‘wrong’ thing? Sometimes, as in the Loving case that scrapped interracial marriage laws as they violated the 14th amendment, we deem it okay to circumvent democracy for the ultimate moral good. The courts will always define what the constitution means to some extent.
Where do we draw the line on this? That’s the question of the day. I really don’t have the answer for where the “line” is, and I don’t expect to have one anytime soon for this and a number of other things. To an extent, I think it can be healthy and normal to live in those gray, ill-defined spaces of ambiguity. These are complicated issues, and in the meantime, I want to do everything I can do give every facet of the argument careful consideration.
ED. NOTE: Collin Hall is the publisher’s grandson and editor of The Tartan, Gordon College.