Our Collective Misunderstanding: The True Purpose of the Supreme Court

• Author: Molly Connolly
• Position: J.D., Georgetown University Law Center (expected May 2023); B.A., Amherst College (2017)
• Pages: 579-606

Our Collective Misunderstanding: The True

Purpose of the Supreme Court

MOLLY CONNOLLY*

INTRODUCTION

They had a laudable goal: a nation designed so strategically that too much cen-

tralized power could never come to be. On parchment paper, the federal structure

the Framers proceeded to build seemed like the perfect mechanism for achieving

that objective. Even so, the system itself relied upon concepts that exist funda-

mentally in conflict.

The Framers chose the checks and balances system as the primary means of

preventing the actualization of centralized power. The idealistic federal structure

ultimately created was comprised of three branches—legislative, executive, and

judicial. Each branch was given a checking capability over the other two

branches, principally to ensure that none of the three garnered too much strength

and to guarantee that each maintained enough authority to operate effectively. A

brief United States history lesson reminds us of the overarching features within

the system: the legislative and executive branches would be sustained through the

democratic political process, while the judiciary would be constructed by the

other branches in an effort to remain insulated from political influence. This focus

for the judiciary has become known as judicial independence. It flows rather natu-

rally, though, to notice that no one branch can ever actually stand apart from the

others in such a system. Specifically, the Supreme Court cannot possibly be inde-

pendent if its composition—its very existence—is determined by the appointment

and approval of two political branches. This Note argues that, although the Court

is not formed through the democratic process, the political aspects that have man-

ifested within the institution were inevitable—and perhaps, when viewed in light

of the true purpose of the Court, this is not as inherently problematic as we may

think.

While many remain committed to finding a way to save the Court’s independ-

ence from politics, this Note argues that we must acknowledge that the structure

of government that the Framers created made judicial independence an unattain-

able aspiration, and thus the commitment to salvaging it is irrational. With this

reality confronted, this Note questions if we have incorrectly understood the

reason for the institution all along. The real purpose of the Supreme Court is not

judicial independence, but instead a body dedicated to a much grander end:

* J.D., Georgetown University Law Center (expected May 2023); B.A., Amherst College (2017). © 2022,

Molly Connolly.

579

safeguarding the Constitution. From this perspective, that end can be achieved

even when the means of judicial independence proves unfeasible.

Part I of this Note provides an overview of the American three-branch gov-

ernment structure and the system of checks and balances, with specific focus

on the goals that our founders had for the judicial branch. Part II identifies and

examines the intrinsic conflict between the motivations of the Framers in cre-

ating the three-branch system, including the ideals they had for the judicial

branch, and the subsequent structure of the Court. This Part then analyzes the

system of checks and balances in practice throughout American history to fur-

ther underscore the impossibility of judicial independence. Part III acknowl-

edges that the impact of a polarized modern America has led to many debates

about reforming the Court but suggests an alternative perspective for the dis-

cussion: the true purpose of the Court is to safeguard the Constitution, and ju-

dicial independence is merely a means—one means—of trying to realize this

goal. Subsequently, this Part underscores that most proposals for Court reform

are destined to fail if judicial independence is the focus, and instead offers

possible reforms that would (1) address the institution’s grander responsibility

of protecting the charter and (2) ensure that the inherently political aspects

imbedded in the Court’s structure—unproblematic on their own—do not

become a concern in practice.

I. THE FOUNDING: MOTIVATIONS FOR A NEW NATION

The Founders dreamed of creating a country safeguarded from the many

“causes which impel[ed] them to the separation”

1

from Great Britain. Their focus

for the country, in large part, was relatively simple: a sovereign nation grounded

in inalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The execu-

tion of this vision was an arduous task, particularly in regard to the logistical for-

mation of this new republic. Who was in charge? What were the rules that all

members must follow? Was it possible to prepare for the future? The need for a

unified framework—a Constitution—became evident.

The official founding document followed, demarcating the national frame of

government. It would become “the supreme law of the land.”

2

The original

Constitution was comprised of seven articles, each concentrated on an aspect of

this proposed governmental system.

3

Although every article is of profound im-

portance in understanding the birth of the United States, the relationship among

1. THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE para. 1 (U.S. 1776).

2. U.S. CONST. art. VI, § 2. It is worth noting that the Articles of Confederation represented a false start.

Although the document created the basic functions of a national government for the new nation, the Articles of

Confederation failed to establish the relationship between that national government and the subsequent state

governments for which the framers hoped. See ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION of 1781.

3. See U.S. CONST. art. I–VII.

580 THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LEGAL ETHICS [Vol. 35:579