Sicilia/Timmons

The judicial branch has been the most debated branch of government since the founding of America. Whether it’s deciding how much power they are allowed, their role with the other branches, or even how we as citizens should interact with them. Everyone has a different opinion but what is the Supreme Court's role today? As the Vision Party we believe that the Constitution should be interpreted through the lens of originalism and the Supreme Court should focus on protecting individual liberties especially when they are being threatened.

Near the end of the preamble to the United States Constitution, it states, “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” This highlights that the purpose of the Constitution has always been to secure liberty and protect individual rights.

John Jay, The nations first chief justice said “'We the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this Constitution.' Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will, that the State Governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform.”

Once again, this shows that the Supreme Court's role is to protect individual rights, particularly when there is a clear individual impact.

The Vision Party interprets the Constitution and the judicial branch through the lens of originalism. Originalism is a method of interpretation that concentrates on the original meaning of the text as it was understood at the time it was written. This approach does not take into account the personal intentions of the founding fathers; rather, it views the Constitution as an objective document. The Vision Party also acknowledges that if interpreting the Constitution through originalism ever infringes on the individual rights of citizens, we must prioritize those individual liberties.

We can confidently say the Constitution was not a perfectly written document and that is why it has been amended to support better and protect the rights of the people.

Judicial review is a power that is not explicitly stated in the Constitution but grants the judicial branch, specifically the Supreme Court, the ability to examine laws and executive actions and determine whether they are constitutional. If a law or action violates the Constitution, the Court can and should declare it invalid and prevent its enforcement to protect and focus on the individual's impact and rights.

In the process of judicial review, judicial restraint and judicial activism has formed, both, when taken to extremes can be detrimental to what the vision party believes to be the role of the supreme court.

Alexander Hamilton, wrote in Federalist Paper #78, “The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body”

Vision distinguishes itself from other parties by its unique perspective on judicial activism. For instance, if we completely disregard all forms of judicial activism, we wouldn't have the important rights-protecting outcome of Brown v. Board of Education. Conversely, if courts focus too much on judicial activism, we can end up with problematic decisions like Boumediene v. Bush or Dred Scott v. Sandford.

The supreme courts role is to protect individual rights and not focus heavily on cases that do not have a clear impact on the individuals.