Lately there has been much debate among political analysts regarding the power of the Supreme Court and possible overextension of this power. A quote has been presented, which claims that " this unelected group of nine, usually white and usually male, individuals has overextended its powers to the point where it acts like another legislature, complete with elicit displays of partisanship." I believe that this opinion lacks merit upon analysis of different aspects of the Supreme Court, including its foundation and purpose, the nature of its composition, and the execution and constraint of this high court.
Looking at all of these various aspects of the Supreme Court, the controversial "abuse of power" accusation can be rebutted ; the Court is composed of judges indirectly elected by the people, the Court is weakened by its shared power, it only rules in cases regarding the interpretation of the Constitution (it doesn't make laws), and its rulings are often restrained by judicial review.
Alexander Hamilton laid the foundation for the Supreme Court's purpose in his Federalist 78 dissertation. Hamilton stated that the Supreme Court is an "excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws." (Woll 410) The Supreme Court was founded to rule on the interpretation of the Constitution, and although it often sets legal precedent, it doesn't make laws like the President and Congress. The entire purpose of the Court is not to create laws for the people; it is not meant to be an absolute authority or tyrannical power, as is also stated by Hamilton. "This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals." (Woll 412) Due to this lack in power of the Court, there is no foundation to accuse it of abusing its power. The Court merely rules on constitutionality of previous decisions and specific questions regarding interpretation of the law of the land.
