This essay challenges Alexander Hamilton's assertion that the Supreme Court lacks both "force" and "will," arguing that historical evidence and landmark rulings demonstrate otherwise. Drawing on the political appointments of justices along partisan lines, the essay shows that the Court exercises genuine will. It further examines the financial and military implications of landmark decisions, particularly Brown v. Board of Education (1954), to illustrate that the Court's influence extends well beyond Hamilton's narrow conception. The paper concludes that the Supreme Court has proven itself a powerful institution with measurable effects on economics, civil rights, and national defense.
Several aspects of Alexander Hamilton's statement regarding the nature of the Supreme Court and its influence are largely inaccurate. There are many examples that prove the Supreme Court possesses both force and will. Moreover, its influence extends to matters related to finances as well as to government and military affairs — what Hamilton referred to as "the sword." When one considers both of these dimensions of what the judicial branch has come to mean in contemporary times as well as throughout history, it becomes readily apparent that Hamilton was incorrect in his views regarding it.
Perhaps the most prominent way in which Hamilton's statement is judged as incorrect relates to the fact that, contrary to his opinion, there is a clear sense of will associated with the Supreme Court. It is not uncommon for justices appointed to this branch to carry political leanings. Typically, those political orientations are either conservative or liberal — or, as they are widely manifested in contemporary times, aligned with either Republicans or Democrats. Whichever representative from one of these two political parties occupies the executive branch will often choose, when the opportunity arises, a Supreme Court justice who shares similar political sentiments. Republican presidents tend to appoint conservatives; Democratic presidents tend to appoint liberals to the Supreme Court bench.
These justices then adjudicate a variety of cases of considerable magnitude and, although they can always exercise their own independent judgment, tend to side with their partisan leanings. In this way, the judicial branch of government does possess both force and will — directly contradicting Hamilton's assertion.
There are multiple court cases that demonstrate the sway the Supreme Court holds over financial affairs in this country, despite Hamilton's claim that this branch of government does not exert influence in that domain. Many of the cases on which the Court issues judgment pertain — either overtly or implicitly — to matters with significant financial implications. Perhaps one of the clearest examples is the Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954. This ruling is predominantly known for its impact on civil rights and segregation, as it overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896, which had held that segregation was permissible as long as facilities were separate but equal (Scott 726). Brown v. Board of Education is celebrated for repudiating that doctrine and establishing the precedent that separate facilities are inherently unequal (Engl et al. 64).
"Brown v. Board reshaped economic opportunity"
"Court decisions affect military and social policy"
Engl, Margaret, Steven Brown Permuth, and Terri K. Wonder. "'Brown v. Board of Education': A Beginning Lesson in Social Justice." International Journal of Educational Reform, vol. 13, no. 1, 2004, pp. 64–73. Print.
Scott, Rebecca. "The Atlantic World and the Road to Plessy v. Ferguson." The Journal of American History, vol. 94, no. 3, 2007, pp. 726–733. Print.
You’re 65% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.