Chapter 6

1)
In the context of the scenario, the challenge over the Affordable Care Act in National Federation
of Independent Business v. Sebelius would have been started when one person sued the other
in a U.S. District Court, they appealed the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and them National
Federation of Independent Business, unhappy with the decision, appealed to the Supreme
Court. When the claim was made, the Justices discussed its validity and at least 9 of them voted
to hear the case. When both sides made their arguments, the Justices went into closed-door
meetings and a majority voted to uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.

In the context of the scenario, the executive branch can affect the Court’s ruling through an
amicus curiae brief to promote one of the arguments, change the way the law is enforced, or- if
the opportunity presents itself- replace a Justice with one who supports their ideology.

The case described in the scenario is focused around the application of the Commerce Clause
from Article I Section 8 of the Constitution and the scope of Congress’s taxing powers. With
that, the Court had to analyze what the framers intended to be included in those enumerated
powers and if the Affordable Care act stayed in these bounds.

2)
The data presented in the table shows often each of the 9 Justices agreed with the other 8 in
some form on each judgement.

Each pair of justices with an agreement of 100% was appointed by presidents of the same party
and have the same liberal or conservative ideology. Those who differed weren’t always from
opposing parties- one may have been a swing vote.

This data shows how they’re independent from the executive who appointed them because
instead of there being sharp partisan divides between the justices, they seem to take moderate
stances with agreement rates being 68% at the lowest. Instead of conservatives and liberals
fighting, they more freely come together and agree in their rulings according to the
constitution.

3)
As is described in the scenario, the decision in U.S. v. Nixon is similar to Marbury v. Madison
because it expanded the power of the judicial branch.

The similarity described in part A is part of the Court’s checks on other branches. As it has
judicial review of Congressional laws, it now has the power to subpoena the president.

The executive branch can limit this ruling’s effects by appointing Justices in the future who will
support executive privilege, changing Department of Justice enforcement guidelines, and
appealing to Congress to create an amendment protecting the executive from prosecution.
 Chapter 6

4) Should the Supreme Court take concerns over its legitimacy seriously?

Although some federalists may argue that the Supreme Court is a revered institution
that rules over the law, the Court needs to take concerns over its legitimacy seriously as it lacks
the tools necessary to enforce its decisions.

The Court is meant to be the final arbiter of the law. Throughout the country’s history,
some of the most influential changes in American society have come from rulings of the
Supreme Court such as desegregation in Brown v. Board of Education, protection of abortion
rights in Roe v. Wade, and legalization of same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges. This is the
design laid out in Article III of the Constitution: the Court would be the final decision on the
constitutionality of a law. However, Article III lays out no way to enforce these decisions and
instead pushes the enforcement to other branches.

With this, even the framers knew that the Court would be weak. In Federalist no. 78,
Hamilton observed that the Supreme Court could not infringe on American rights because it
had no system to enforce its decisions. If we know this to be true, then it makes sense that
enough people who dislike Supreme Court rulings can choose to ignore them; in fact, it’s
happened before.

People like to present the Court as a deliberative institution which delivers its rulings to
be fully enforced, but the truth is that a significant challenge to the Court’s power came under
Andrew Jackson’s presidency. In Worcester v. Georgia, the Court ruled that a Georgia law
mandating the removal of Native Americans was unconstitutional. In response, Jackson
infamously said “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” The decision was
then ignored and the law was carried out anyways. Knowing the weaknesses in the system and
the historical challenges the Supreme Court has faced, it makes sense that they need to worry
about concerns of their legitimacy now.