No, the Supreme Court Does Not Have a Final Say on What the Law is

Recently, Megyn Kelly remarked in a Fox News interview that the Supreme Court has the final say on what the law is.

     Sadly, this is one of the most common misunderstanding the American people have on the Supreme Court.

     She (and those who agree with her) erred in two ways: 1) There is nowhere in the Constitution that says that the Supreme Court has the final say on what the law is, and 2) the Court has no power to give itself more power.

     Now, it is true that the supreme "judicial Power" was vested to the Supreme Court. What, then, is the judicial Power? It is a power to judge, that is for sure. The Supreme Court has the final authority to reverse a ruling of lower courts. But that does not necessarily have the consequence of the Supreme Court being the supreme arbiter of the law. The intended power of the Court, and further the practical power of the Court as it ought to be, comes from two faucets: its suggestive power and its ability to check tyranny.

     Its suggestive power is to compel the people into following a particular law by way of the legal elites' superior legal reasoning. It has the ability to use logos into compelling the people or any of the other branches of government. It then becomes the necessary piece to check the tendency toward tyranny that can be advanced by either the Congress or the Executive branch.

     Supposing the fact that the authority to become the final arbiter of the law is absent in the Constitution, let's say, in accordance to what Mrs. Kelly said, the precedent was set through Marbury v. Madison (let's just assume so for now... but the fact is that she read the case wrongly). This is a ridiculous assertion in that the Court cannot give power to itself by setting precedents. Furthermore, through no mode of Constitutional interpretation can one reasonably conclude that there can be implicitly drawn the power to give power to itself. Such an interpretation would completely undermine the spirit of the Constitution which emphasizes a three-branched government with checks and balances.

     The question is thus this: Where did this notion that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law come from? The answer is simply the fact that the people recognize it as thus; the idea is in their heads and won't leave. The plain fact is that there is no such thing as supreme arbiter of the law. Neither the people themselves, nor any branch of the government. This fact, the fact that there is no supreme arbiter of the law, is in plain sight in that a Court's ruling can be overturned either by the Court itself, in effect by the people by voting a president who will appoint a new judge, and also through Constitutional amendments. If this notion does not go away, we would have lost an element of democracy. If this notion does not go away, we would have a judicial tyranny where the Justices rule in favor of their political agendas or the President's agenda unchallenged. We already see in the history of the Court justices taking advantage of this perception of their judicial Power.

     What, then, can we do to resist unlawful rulings? Abraham Lincoln, as remarked by Brown in the interview, resisted the Dredd Scott v. Sanford ruling by the Supreme Court. Lincoln saw the Court's interpretation of the constitution to be incorrect and thus unlawful. So he actively resisted the ruling. He was also not alone in the act. A multitude of people, citizens and politicians alike, dissented to the ruling.

     Consider also Plessy v. Ferguson where the Court ruled in favor of segregated public facilities. The people, that is to say individuals, both in office and out, who conscientiously objected to the Court's ruling influenced the overturning of the case through Brown v. Board of Education. What can we say about this fact? The people also has a say in determining what the law is and has the ability to influence the Court. Let us also look at the prohibition movement. The early feminists influenced the government to pass an amendment to ban alcoholic drinks. The people also have a suggestive power that can compel the Court into judging the law in a particular way, and also the ability to influence the other branches of the government. The people as a whole are, in effect, a very powerful arbiter of the law. (On a side note, it should be recognized that a mob rule should be avoided... Each facet of the political system can give way to abuse of given political power.)

     Since Obergfell was mentioned in the interview, I will use it as an example of an unlawful decision. Many people in the liberal camp celebrated, and, at the same time, mocked Scalia and Roberts when they said that the decision was not about the Constitution. I will put that impulse to test.

     In order to rule, the Court, by way of the 14th, the Equal Protection Clause in particular, suggested that marriage, a fundamental right, should be extended to all regardless of one's sexual orientation, beyond a union between a man and a woman. But what the Court has to presuppose to pass this ruling is to redefine the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage as understood by the law comes from a long-understood cultural definition of marriage, both religious and secular, for the advancement of the social good. In turn it means that the legal definition of marriage is contingent upon the social definition of marriage. Now, where in the Constitution does it say that the Court justices have the power to become philosophers, a bunch of relativist philosophers at that, and change the definition of marriage as understood by the society? Nowhere. The Court's judicial Power is limited to the reaches of the law under the Constitution, not to determining socially accepted definition of institutions as accepted by the law. Such powers to rule based on mores were vested upon state jurisdictions, not federal. This de-centralized view of the court system is even more evident in our common law tradition. The decision indeed was not about the Constitution... It was a struggle for the political dominance of socially liberal agenda, pressed upon by Ginsburg and the likes. The Court exercised a power they do not have, that much is true. But the people simply gave way to it, content only on the fact that they got what they wanted, and ignorant of the fact that the Court used a power that it does not have to pass a ruling such as Obergfell.

     Should such a behavior continue, we would set precedents by which this democracy becomes more vulnerable to either an ignorant emotivist mob rule, or, in the worst, a tyrannical rule. It is about time that the people should wake up and face the fact that the Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of the law, and also the fact that there is no such a thing as advised by the Constitution. It is true that we should recognize the suggestive power of the Court and give consent to the precedents set by itself if their decisions are correct as they often are. But there can be times, as history would evidently tell us, where the Court can go wrong. A perpetual debate whether a ruling was correct or not is a suffering we must be willing to pay in order to maintain a proper democracy, or, perhaps, recover it.

Public School Systems Should Teach Religion (Properly)

It is to my opinion that the American public school system should teach religion in high school and in college as part of its curriculum. I am not saying that they should teach it in a way that endorses a particular religion; that would be against the separation of church and state. What I am suggesting is that the government should promote tolerance and knowledge of religious cultures the children otherwise might not be taught in their homes or disregarded through propagandas of the media by teaching and helping them understand key doctrines of worldviews of major religions, and also the alternative to religious life atheism, because it is apparent that what is included in traditional social sciences courses is not enough. Since the courses will teach both religious and non-religious views, the state will be impartial in its education. The reasons why the government should do so will be presented thus. I will not be writing about how the government can ensure educators being impartial in educating them.

    American public discourse is marked by gross misunderstanding of religion. The misunderstanding includes both particular key doctrines of religions as well as religion as a concept. This misunderstanding perpetuates both aisles. On the conservative side, an example would be misinterpreting Islamic doctrines to portray the religion as a religion of violence, and also mischaracterization of Catholicism by some evangelicals. On the liberal side, there is a habit of considering faith and reason mutually exclusive (which is epistemically incorrect), and, of course, misinterpreting religious doctrines (just look up a liberal article on Pope Francis).

(Let us quickly note with rough-cut analogies how religious beliefs can be rational. Consider first faith. I know very little about global climate, but the scientific community tells me that the global climate has been changing, so I believe them. Now, I do not have yet validated the particulars of the scientific findings, but I chose to put faith in their words anyway. Am I rationally justified? Yes. Consider the existence of God. Can science disprove or prove the existence of God? No. But I find, by rational principles of act and potency, I find it necessary that there must be a being of pure act, i.e. God. So I put my faith that God does in fact exist. It is of no question that faith is an integral part of our rational faculties.)

     These misunderstandings, as we can very well see, is toxic to both social cohesion and proper democratic decisions. Social cohesion cannot be achieved well, because, due to a disturbing level of misunderstanding between parties, frustrations arise and unbiased open dialogues become more difficult, since it is only human nature that inflamed minds tend to be partial. Furthermore, the liberal habit of holding faith and reason mutually exclusive leads to people thinking that moral beliefs based on religious viewpoints are irrational. This leads to many atheists thinking that conscientious objections based on religious convictions are meaningless. A baker who will not give support to a gay marriage, a clerk who only asked for a pardon on handing out homosexual marriage licenses, a doctor who refuses to suggest euthanasia... they are all irrational, so the secularists would like to say. The liberal secularists simply dismiss them as bigots who try to force their ways onto others, which is grossly false; conscientious objections do not necessarily equate to bigotry. 

     The secular liberals also temd to "hippify" Eastern religions like Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism. Of course, such tainting of religious doctrines is of grwt offense to the devout followers. The religious are tired of being pushed around by sociopathic apathy by their secular opponents. Surely, misunderstanding of religious doctrines lead to  social abrasion.

     It is further toxic to the democratic decision making process, because the representatives might end up misinformed people, making misinformed decision. Let's imagine a world where the government tracks all Muslims with micro-GPS devices because they fear that Islam is a religion of terror. If such a law is passed, we can be sure that such a law was passed on misinformation about Islam.

     Let's also imagine a world where the elected president attempts to coerce private companies to provide contraception and abortifacients, which the companies hold to be immoral from their adherence to their religious doctrines, to their employees as part of an insurance program. Because the government essentially thinks the companies' religious beliefs are are irrational. the government by consequence thinks that the companies' reasoning is automatically disqualified under the government's rational interests. If such a law is passed, or even attempted to be passed, we can know with certainty that the proponents of the government's regulations were infringing on the most precious of rights - (rational) private conscience - whether they were aware of it or not. If in fact they were unaware, it would then be due to a misinformed judgement that religious beliefs are irrational, thereby unworthy of fair consideration for the companies' first amendment rights. We can therefore see how misunderstanding of religious doctrines can be toxic to informed democratic decisions.

     What, then, would relieve us from such problems? The answer is simply to have the general public better educated on religious matters. Since each individual families and communities would be inadequate in educating students about different religious viewpoints including atheism due to their lack of diverse knowledge, the solution should be offered by the entity which has a vested interest in a well-functioning society, i.e. the government. In so doing, the government would promote tolerant dialogues where both parties understand each other, thereby increasing social cohesion and the propensity toward informed democratic decisions.