SUPREME COURT: Is the Supreme Court too powerful for an unelected body?

Key words are

-Supreme Court

-Powerful

-Unelected body

So make sure you include all these in your introduction to show the examiner you know your stuff.

                                                              Let's consider the question. 

The examiner wants to know... is the Court too powerful? You could argue it is too powerful, it needs more power or it has just enough.

The question says 'Is the Supreme Court too powerful for an unelected body'. This implies that the most power should only be given to those who have a mandate to govern, through elections. Both houses in Congress are elected, and so is the president. So in this question, it makes sense to briefly compare the power of the Court to the president and Congress.

Ok let's start

Main body

TOO POWERFUL	NOT TOO POWERFUL
The impact of judicial review can be quite profound. People’s lives, livelihood and lifestyles are often totally dependent on a single ruling. Think about death penalty, gun rights and same sex marriage rulings	Although powerful, the Supreme Court is checked by the other branches; Congress and the executive. In theory, Congress can overturn any ruling through constitutional amendments but in practice, this is very difficult due to the ridiculous amendment process Likewise, the executive branch can decide not to implement a Supreme Court ruling eg in June 2015, the Obama administration vowed to ignore a ruling on coal emissions
Justices have life tenure and guaranteed salaries. This makes it difficult to influence the Court or hold them to account However, this is good because it protects their independence and neutrality, which ensures the rule of law is upheld	The Court is accountable due to the threat of impeachment eg Thomas Porteous was impeached in 2010 on four counts of corruption Confirmation process transfers some power to both Congress and president. All Justices are chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate eg Sonia Sotomayor (2009), Elena Kagan (2010)
The Court can pick and choose cases to hear or reject, often to prevent excessive controversy eg Adar v Smith (2013)	There are some high profile cases that the Court is unlikely to ignore. It could not reject cases of particular importance such as bush v Gore (2000), Citizens United v FEC, the 2015 same sex marriage case
	The power of the Court is often checked by public opinion. Amicus curiae briefings have been known to influence the Court’s decisions eg Grutter v Bollinger where over 350 were received. Perhaps this is because the Court wants to prevent a situation where Congress overturns its ruling, which would certainly weaken the authority of the Court
The power of the Court would have been acceptable if it always protected civil rights and liberties. (Look back at the post on the Court’s effectiveness in protecting civil rights)	The Court needs more power to become a more effective guardian of civil rights
	The due process clause gives the Court a mandate to exercise power. The clause is found in the 5th and 14th amendments; it protects citizens from authorities treating people however they like. Therefore, although the Court has no mandate through elections, it does have a mandate from the Constitution

Conclusion

Pick a side and say why you agree. I don't think the Court is too powerful; it has just enough power to safeguard civil rights and liberties while acting as a check on the legislative and executive branches through judicial review. The Supreme Court has become more conservative under John G. Roberts; which has fostered the use of judicial restraint, effectively transferring power to the legislature and executive. Thus, the Supreme Court is not too powerful for an unelected body and in fact, has just enough power to perform its constitutional functions.