Difference between revisions of "Judicial supremacy"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(a start) |
(add shift by Warren Court) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Judicial supremacy is the view that the judiciary, and in particular the Supreme Court, | + | Judicial supremacy is the view that the judiciary, and in particular the US Supreme Court, has authority in Constitutional interpretation that is superior to the of other branches of government and the states. It was first articulated by the Warren Court in Cooper v Aaron, 1958. |
| + | Until then, the consensus was that the US Constitution itself was the supreme law of the law, and that three branches of the federal government (Legislative, Executive, Judiciary) were equally responsible for upholding the Constitution. | ||
In 2007, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court in criticizing and rejection the temptation for courts to exercise "judicial supremacy."<ref>[[United Haulers Ass'n, Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Auth.]]</ref> | In 2007, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court in criticizing and rejection the temptation for courts to exercise "judicial supremacy."<ref>[[United Haulers Ass'n, Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Auth.]]</ref> | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
| − | |||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
Revision as of 17:40, June 19, 2007
Judicial supremacy is the view that the judiciary, and in particular the US Supreme Court, has authority in Constitutional interpretation that is superior to the of other branches of government and the states. It was first articulated by the Warren Court in Cooper v Aaron, 1958. Until then, the consensus was that the US Constitution itself was the supreme law of the law, and that three branches of the federal government (Legislative, Executive, Judiciary) were equally responsible for upholding the Constitution.
In 2007, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court in criticizing and rejection the temptation for courts to exercise "judicial supremacy."[1]