Is the Supreme Court a “Majoritarian” Institution?

Abstract

This research paper presents the main theories regarding whether the Supreme Court is a representative institution and why a small, non-elected group of nine individuals, should have the power to decide some of the most profound moral issues for a country. In some opinions, it is stated that the appointments process in the United States is itself controlled by the political branches and it should come as no surprise, then, that nominations and appointments are likely to reflect the median preferences of the relevant political actors. The main constraints that requires the Court to reflect majoritarian views are: Public Opinion, The Appointments Process and Political Institutions. Rezumat: Prezentul studiu prezinta principalele teorii cu privire la intrebarea daca este Curtea Suprema de Justiþie o instituþie reprezentativa oi de ce un mic grup de noua persoane, care nu au fost alese prin vot, ar trebui sa aiba puterea de a decide unele dintre cele mai profunde aspecte morale pentru o þara. In unele opinii, se afirma ca procesul de numire in Statele Unite este in sine controlat de catre ramurile politice oi nu ar trebui sa surprinda pe nimeni ca numirile oi rezervarile sunt susceptibile de a reflecta preferinþele principalilor actori politici. Principalele constrângeri care impun Curþii sa adopte opiniile majoritare sunt: opinia publica, procesul de numire oi instituþiile politice.