3 ms·
> Party lines shouldn’t even be a thing in the SC, but unfortunately that ship has sailed. When was it ever not corrupted with parties? Marbury v. Madison happ
by ImJamal 2y ago
> Party lines shouldn’t even be a thing in the SC, but unfortunately that ship has sailed.
When was it ever not corrupted with parties? Marbury v. Madison happened in 1803 so at most 15 years.
- kccqzy 2y agoMarbury v. Madison was not corruption with parties. In fact to the contrary. It was a master move by Marshall to please both parties, and also established the principle of judicial review. In contrast to recent justices having a bias towards a party, Marshall managed to give both the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans something they liked.
- ImJamal 2y agoYou are looking at it in a different way than I am. While Marshall was extraordinarily gifted in the ruling and gave both sides part of what they wanted, he ultimately gave the Federalists, which he was a member of, the long term victory. He enshrined judicial review, which was very much up to debate, as a power the Supreme Court had. This power was then extended past federal laws into state laws. This is the exact thing that the Federalists wanted and the Democratic-Republicans opposed. Madison himself thought the congress should be able to veto state laws saying that it was "absolutely necessary to a perfect system". The current crop of Supreme Court justices are no where near as talented so their decisions are more blatant and immediate. Marshall was able to look long term and got his party what they wanted.