No Supreme Court

All ideological arguments aside, what would the impact have been if there had been no Supreme Court in the United States after the American Revolution? What kind of an appeals system would there be, and how would cases of national importance (such as civil rights) have been handled?
 

mowque

Banned
What system do you want? No federal court system? Super-Articles of Confederation or something? You need something or you'll never make it to Civil Rights, ;).
 
How about this

Both parties must be willing to bring ther grievences to court and not just one court. The case needs to be heard in the top court of all 13 colonies. Now heres the kicker, there must be at least a 7-6 decision in favor of either side for the case to be resolved.

I know this would be an "efficient" system; it is the only alternative to the supreme court that i can think of.
 
I don't really see how you can have no Supreme Court; to have a reasonably functional judicial system there has to be a top court in the land.

Now, what would be quite plausible is a Supreme Court with no judicial review, which would essentially end the Supreme Court as a significant political force.
 
There isn't a "Supreme Court" in the British system, and I've always found it curious that the rebels created something original. Federal judges are understood to be part of the Justice department, and if one appeals past, say, a Circuit Court of Appeals the case lands on the floor of the House of Lords. The Upper House is the court of last resort - in the American case, the Senate.

It is a different, and in my opinion far clearer and more accurate, understanding of the function of a "supreme" court. If it was possible to decide a case by interpreting existing black-letter law, that case would never make it that far. The highest court creates laws that are urgently needed but which the legislature has for whatever reason not debated and written. When existing law is found to be an inadequate answer, the legislative body has to quit ducking the question and write the needed law. Complaints about "activist judges" may or may not have merit in regard to lower courts and circuit courts, but when referring to the highest court of the land they are manifestly asinine; a "supreme" who is not "activist" in one direction or another is unqualified for their office.
 
I don't really see how you can have no Supreme Court; to have a reasonably functional judicial system there has to be a top court in the land.

Now, what would be quite plausible is a Supreme Court with no judicial review, which would essentially end the Supreme Court as a significant political force.

Couldn't you have seperate state Supreme Courts, each with their own judicial common law? It would arguably be inefficient (especially with conflicting Constitutional interpretations), but there would be nothing to prevent it.
 
There isn't a "Supreme Court" in the British system, and I've always found it curious that the rebels created something original. Federal judges are understood to be part of the Justice department, and if one appeals past, say, a Circuit Court of Appeals the case lands on the floor of the House of Lords.

Since 1834 (and generally before that), the House of Lords was actually a number of (generally twelve) senior judges that were given peerages (and could theoretically vote on legislation, but rarely did). People have had this misconception about things going to the floor of the House of Lords, so a few years ago they decided to rename the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords (confusingly known simply as the House of Lords within the legal profession) the Supreme Court. Obviously at the time non-legally trained peers could stick an oar in sometimes.
 
Couldn't you have seperate state Supreme Courts, each with their own judicial common law? It would arguably be inefficient (especially with conflicting Constitutional interpretations), but there would be nothing to prevent it.
Inefficient would be putting it lightly; you would probably end up with a situation where different states had vastly different and frequently contradictory legal codes. It would just cause a huge mess for any sort of interstate commerce, to the point where someone would have to create some sort of court that ranked above the various state courts to sort everything out. At that point, you have a Supreme Court anyway.

On another note, it occurs to me that with no Federal Supreme Court it would fall to the various state courts to make the authoritative legal interpretation of the constitution. That could have all kinds of interesting effects down the line.
 
Top