- [Instructor] Of the three branches of the U.S. Government,
the Judicial branch is the one
that is least bound by public opinion.
Supreme Court Justices aren't elected, they're appointed,
and they serve for life or until they decide to retire.
Usually a Justices serve on the court for many years
after the end of the term of the President
who appointed them.
One Justice, William O. Douglas,
was appointed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1939
and didn't retire until 1975 when Gerald Ford was President.
Can you imagine how much changed
during his tenure on the court?
The framers designed things this way
so that the Supreme Court Justices can be independent
consulting the Constitution and precedent to decide
whether laws an executive actions are permissible
without having to worry about keeping
the public happy to get reelected,
but this also means that it's not unusual
that the Supreme Court makes decisions that the public,
the President or members of Congress don't like.
Brown versus Board of Education in 1954 is a good example.
White southerners resisted the ruling refusing
to integrate segregated public schools.
Although it wasn't popular with the majority population
of the states that it most affected,
the ruling protecting minority rights in Brown versus Board
was made possible by the independence of the Judiciary.
In that case, the Supreme Court
had the backing of Presidents Dwight Eisenhower
and John F. Kennedy who sent Federal troops
into the south to enforce the ruling.
Even though the court is independent,
it's still important that it maintains
it's legitimacy in the eyes of the public,
so that citizens believe that the court is impartial
and that it's possible to challenge the other branches
through the actions of the court.
To maintain it's legitimacy,
Justices on the court are careful
not to give the appearance of favoring one political party
over another by ruling too often
for or against one parties policies.
But what happens when the President
or Congress doesn't support the Supreme Court's rulings?
What measures can they take to affect the court's decisions?
There are three main ways
that we'll talk about in this video.
Future appointments to the court,
changing the court's jurisdiction
and refusing to implement the court's decisions.
One of the ways that Presidents can influence the court
is by appointing Justices.
Presidents tend to nominate Supreme Court Justices
who share their interpretation of the Constitution,
so their appointments change
the ideological composition of the court.
For example, President Richard Nixon appointed four Justices
to the Supreme Court that altered
the court's ideological leaning.
He ushered in a transition from a liberal court
under Chief Justice Earl Warren to a more conservative court
under Chief Justice Warren Burger.
Congress can also influence the court
by changing the number of Justices.
But today, we accept that there are
nine Justices on the Supreme Court,
but Article III of the Constitution doesn't actually specify
how many Justices are on the court.
Over time, there have been as few as six and as many as 10.
There have been nine since Congress passed
the Judiciary Act of 1869,
but Congress had actually eliminated seats in the 1860's.
Then in the 1930's, Franklin Roosevelt proposed
adding more court seats to the Supreme Court
so that it's ideological balance would move in favor
of his new deal legislation.
So, although, the number of Justices on the court
hasn't actually changed in 150 years,
Congress does retain the power to adjust that number.
Another way that Congress can influence the Supreme Court
is by changing it's jurisdiction
or the field of authority
that it has to hear and decide cases.
There are two places in the Constitution
that say that Congress can do this.
Article I, Section 8, which says
that Congress has the power to constitute tribunals inferior
to the Supreme Court,
and Article III, Section 1, which says
that judicial power shall be vested in the Supreme Court,
and such inferior courts as the congress
may from time to time ordain and establish.
So Congress may add new Federal courts
by splitting up an existing District
or subtract them by combining Districts.
Congress may also pass legislation
stripping the Supreme Court's jurisdiction
to hear certain types of cases on appeal.
Some recent examples of Congress attempting
to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction concern
the detainees at Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba.
In the mid 2000's,
the detainee's petitioned the Supreme Court to review
whether their detention was legal,
and Congress passed two laws stripping detainees
of the right to petition courts for review.
The Supreme Court overturned both of those laws.
The last way that the other branches can push back
against a court decision is by refusing to implement it
or by doing as little as possible to implement it.
Remember, the court itself has no enforcement power.
It has to rely on the executive branch
to enforce it's rulings.
So what happens when the President disagrees
with the ruling?
In most cases, Presidents enforce
the Supreme Court's rulings whether they like them or not
seeing it as part of their duty to uphold the government.
But in rare cases,
a President might choose not to enforce a court ruling,
especially if their party controls Congress.
An early example of this was in 1808
when the Supreme Court ruled Thomas Jefferson's Embargo Act,
the one with the famous, Oh Grab Me cartoon,
was unconstitutional.
Jefferson instructed customs agents
to keep on enforcing the Embargo and they did.
So the important takeaway here is that even though
the Supreme Court determines the law of the land,
the system of checks and balances still applies to it.
Congress and the President have several ways
to influence the court's power, present and future.