Reflections Upon Judicial Independence As We Approach The Bicentennial of Marbury v. Madison: Safeguarding the Constitution's "Crown Jewel"
Honorable Gerald E. Rosen, Kyle W. Harding
Abstract
Open-access reader
Honorable Gerald E. Rosen, Kyle W. Harding
Abstract
Open-access reader
This Article traces the history of judicial independence from the drafting of the Constitution and the Supreme Court's articulation of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison. It addresses the obstacles encountered during the ratification process and the reaction to the Marbury decision. The Article then summarizes the continued challenges to judicial independence, from President Roosevelt's "court-packing" plan to characterizations of judicial activism in Lochner v. New York. The Article concludes by warning that judges must remain vigilant against the impact of the highly partisan political process and the advent of powerful special interest groups.
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
This Article traces the history of judicial independence from the drafting of the Constitution and the Supreme Court's articulation of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison. It addresses the obstacles encountered during the ratification process and the reaction to the Marbury decision. The Article then summarizes the continued challenges to judicial independence, from President Roosevelt's "court-packing" plan to characterizations of judicial activism in Lochner v. New York. The Article concludes by warning that judges must remain vigilant against the impact of the highly partisan political process and the advent of powerful special interest groups.
Key concepts: Law, Constitution, Judicial independence, Political science, Separation of powers, Supreme court