Skip to main content

Whenever the U.S. Supreme Court exercises the power of judicial review, is doing so more likely to benefit the interests of popular majorities in...

When the Supreme Court of the United States exercises its power of judicial review, it is more likely to benefit the interests of the less popular groups in the country.  To understand why this is so, let us think about what happens when the Court exercises this power.


When the Court engages in judicial review it invalidates a law that has been passed by Congress and signed by the president. So what does that tell us about this question?  Is a law that has been passed by Congress and signed by the President (or by a legislature and signed by a state governor) more likely to represent what the powerful want or what the less popular groups want?  The answer is that such laws typically represent what the popular majority wants.


Laws do not generally pass Congress (or a state legislature) if they are not acceptable to popular majorities. The legislative branches are set up so that they will respond to the will of the people.  The will of the people is usually the same as the will of the popular majorities.  Therefore, laws that pass through this process usually reflect what popular majorities want.


Think about times in our history when the Supreme Court has made famous decisions.  Recently, there was the decision that made same-sex marriage legal. This supported the rights of a less popular group.  Think much further back to the time when the Supreme Court said that racial segregation was illegal. This, too, helped a less popular group. Not all decisions by the Court are like this, but in general, the Supreme Court helps less popular groups when it exercises its power of judicial review.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more