The Supreme Court and its subsidiary courts are
often viewed in the general media and pedagogical environments as another
pillar that drives social change. But a thorough look into the activities,
history, and procedures of the judicial branch would call into question the
legitimacy of its influence in politics and society. There appears to be a gap
in whether the courts play a more dynamic or supportive role when it comes to
reshaping society. This paper argues that the Supreme Court's influence to bring
about social change is more constrained and often relies on the executive and
legislative branches to carry out its "influence" in society. The
instances in which the courts do initiate change are countermajoritarian,
protecting constitutional principles and minority rights against the majority
ideology at the time. Drawing on Stephen L. Carter’s review of Gerald
Rosenberg's The Hollow Hope in which the court's ruling has limited
effects for three reasons. First, the courts are bound by constitutional text and
precedent; therefore, they can only address social, political, and economic
issues by connecting them to previously established rights. Second, the
judiciary is not as independent as it was intended to be with the justices’
life tenure. Political parties play a heavy influence in the nomination and
confirmation process of appointing justices. Let alone the justices’ own
personal beliefs based on the attitudinal model, as argued by Harold J. Spaeth
in The Attitudinal Model. Third, the courts cannot enforce their own
decisions in cases. Often relying on the executive’s power of the sword and the
legislative’s power of the purse to do so, a weakness that Alexander Hamilton
mentions in Federalist No.78. These limitations mentioned can be seen
throughout the paper's analysis of abortion rights. This paper recognizes that
the courts are an important pillar in American government by their merits, but
their role as the societal changemaker it's portrayed to be is not the whole
story.
