The Political Dynamics of Justice Reform in The U.S.

they approach their task, they seem fated to make new law, simply by virtue of their role
in the constitutional order.
Nevertheless, the rationale for judicial review remains: it is a legitimate check on elected
legislatures because they are, by their nature, imperfect representatives of the popular
will. That was widely accepted in America at the time of the constitutional convention.
For the same reason, other countries have embraced some form of judicial review—
even Britain, which has no written constitution to back it up. But the limits of judicial
review remain as problematic as they were when they were debated two centuries ago.
In fact, as Stephen Griffin lucidly argues, the court has never managed to follow a
consistent interpretative approach for long. Conservative, as well as liberal, courts have
been activist and both have also, in different periods, exercised restraint, sometimes to
the point of subservience to Congress or the president.
What clearly emerges from Mr Griffin's account is a view of the court not as the final
arbiter on constitutional questions, but as only one element in a tripartite system of
government designed to divide power and create friction between the three branches.
The court may not be elected, but its members are nominated by the president and
confirmed by Congress, which also has considerable power over the funding and
operation of the federal court system. Both president and Congress have
unapologetically used their powers to mould the court throughout American history.
Although these efforts have sometimes backfired, and have often been decried as “too
political”, they have always been an integral part of American governance. As a result,
the court's history is one of zigzags and reversals, reflecting the changed attitudes of
the nation, sometimes leading, sometimes following. The court has usually been widely
respected, but occasionally derided.
Even most of its justices have not seen the Supreme Court as a final, unaccountable
arbiter. Many of the greatest justices, such as John Marshall Harlan and Oliver Wendell
Holmes, have been known as “great dissenters”, who spent their careers on the bench
writing eloquent opinions addressed to future Supreme Court justices, in the hope that
their views would eventually prevail. As subject to the buffeting of political storms as
either of the other two branches of government, and like them capable of making
mistakes, the court's legitimacy survives because its contribution is distinct and
respected. It represents the voice of reasoned argument in America's permanent
conversation with itself.
https://www.economist.com/review/1997/09/04/the-politics-of-justice
________
Criminal Justice Reform in The U.S.
Criminal Justice Reform in the United States is aimed at fixing perceived errors in
the criminal justice system. Goals of organizations spearheading the movement for
Page 22 of 262