|
Preface
As the final arbiter of constitutional disputes,
the U.S. Supreme Court wields enormous influence in national
affairs. Indeed, given the magnitude of some of its decisions over
the last halfcentury or so, the Court has, perhaps more than any
other governmental body, shaped the social landscape of modern
America. In terms of their transformative impact, few presidential
initiatives or pieces of congressional legislation can compare to
Supreme Court rulings like Brown v. Board of Education, which struck
down the "separate but equal" provisions that permitted racial
segregation; Roe v. Wade, which declared that women have the
constitutional right to an abortion; or Bush v. Gore, which paved
the way for George W. Bush’s assumption of the presidency by halting
the Florida recount during the disputed 2000 election.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s true influence is
often greater than the sum of its decisions: At times the unintended
consequences of a particular verdict have been every bit as
substantial as the verdict itself. Brown, for example, struck a blow
against racial injustice, but it also radicalized certain segments
of the white population, particularly in the South, where
segregation was most prevalent. Paradoxically, by legalizing
abortion, Roe may have cultivated the seeds of its own destruction,
galvanizing abortion opponents, particularly among evangelical and
religious populations, and spurring their entry into the electoral
arena in order to overturn the decision.
But the Court has not always played such a
decisive role. Though the framers of the Constitution envisioned a
system of checks and balances whereby the three coequal branches of
the federal government—the legislative, executive, and
judicial—would rein in one another, thus preventing any single
branch from exercising too much power, this hopedfor interplay did
not develop immediately. In fact, in the decade after the
ratification of the Constitution in 1789, the Supreme Court—and the
judiciary as a whole—was quite demonstrably eclipsed in influence
and prestige by both Congress and the president, the titular heads
of the legislative and executive branches. In 1803, however, in
Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John
Marshall established its authority over judicial review, declaring
that the judiciary alone has the power to determine the
constitutionality of federal legislation or executive actions.
Since Marbury, the Supreme Court has remained a
more or less equal partner in the federal government. At times, the
Court’s decisions—in the Dred Scott case, for example, which
strengthened the institution of slavery—have fared poorly in the
eyes of history, while at other moments the Court has bucked the
popular will, as in Brown, to right a historic wrong. Still other
rulings have had more mixed results: Roe, for example, continues to
divide the country more than 30 years after it was decided, calling
to mind Justice Robert H. Jackson’s famous quote about the Court:
"We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible
only because we are final."
The first chapter of this book provides an
overview of the composition, function, and history of the Court.
Among the topics addressed are the Court’s bureaucratic procedures
and overall culture. Specific articles chart the evolution of the
Court over the centuries and describe the various luminaries who
have served on the bench and helped shape the Court as an
institution.
Some of the more renowned and influential cases
decided by the Court during its history are examined in the second
section. Along with Marbury, certain politically incendiary
verdicts—Brown, Roe, and Bush v. Gore, among them—are analyzed, as
are various equally weighty if lessexplosive verdicts, like Gideon
v. Wainwright, which established a defendant’s right to legal
counsel, and Miranda v. Arizona, which declared that law enforcement
officers must inform arrestees of their legal rights when taking
them into custody.
Like the country as a whole, the Supreme Court is
frequently divided along partisan lines, and a stable consensus has
yet to emerge on a number of controversial topics. Abortion, gay
rights, and the war on terror, for example, all raise significant
legal issues that have yet to be fully and definitively addressed.
These unsettled areas of Supreme Court jurisprudence are examined in
the third chapter.
The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who was
elevated to his post in 1986 after 14 years as an associate justice,
was known for his conservative inclinations, particularly for his
espousal of federalism, a judicial philosophy that champions states’
rights. Selections in the fourth chapter examine his personal
history and legacy. Dubbed the "Lone Ranger" during his early tenure
for often coming out on the wrong end of 8–1 verdicts, Rehnquist
oversaw an ideological revolution on the Court, which, through the
appointments of such conservatives as Antonin Scalia and Clarence
Thomas, was remade in his image.
The Court’s future forms the thematic framework of
the final chapter. With the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist and the
pending resignation of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who frequently
cast the deciding vote in 5–4 verdicts, President George W. Bush
will have the opportunity to reshape the ideological makeup of the
Court. With the nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. to succeed
Rehnquist and Harriet Miers to replace O’Connnor, Bush let it be
known that he would seek to maintain the Court’s conservative tenor.
In closing, we would like to thank the authors and
publishers of the articles contained in this volume. We would also
like to express our gratitude to the colleagues and friends whose
advice and assistance helped make this compilation possible,
particularly Sandra Watson and Michael A. Messina.
Paul McCaffrey and Lynn M. Messina
October 2005
|
|
