The Supreme Court is the highest court in America.
But it isn’t the highest authority in our system.
The Constitution is.
That distinction is at the center of the newest episode of The Defiant Citizen, based on Restoration Paper No. 15: The Constitutional Judiciary - Judgment, Not Rule.
The Founders wanted an independent judiciary, and for good reason. Judges have to be able to tell Congress that a law is unconstitutional, tell a president that he has exceeded his authority, and protect individuals when government violates their rights.
But independence and supremacy aren’t the same thing.
In this episode, I take a plain-English look at the difference between judicial review and judicial supremacy, why Article III was designed the way it was, and what Alexander Hamilton meant when he described the judiciary as possessing “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.”
I also look at something that tends to get overlooked in these debates:
The Supreme Court has overturned the Supreme Court.
Justices have revisited constitutional decisions made by earlier Courts and concluded that those decisions were wrong. That alone should remind us that a Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution and the Constitution itself aren’t the same thing.
This episode also explores the history behind judicial independence, the English Star Chamber and colonial experience, nationwide injunctions, Trump v. CASA, Supreme Court tenure, judicial ethics, congressional responsibility under Article III, and what a properly limited but still powerful judiciary might look like.
This isn’t an argument for weaker courts.
It’s an argument for courts strong enough to defend liberty, independent enough to withstand political pressure, and restrained enough to recognize the limits of their own authority.
Because the judiciary was given an enormously important responsibility.
Judgment. Not rule.
You can also read the full companion essay, Restoration Paper No. 15: The Constitutional Judiciary - Judgment, Not Rule, here:
