The Nation doesn’t divide the Supreme Court. The Court divides the Nation. The Court is there to make the country adhere to higher standards. Yet, it fails due to Partisanship instead of logically applying ethics to create a cohesive standard.
Among the most controversial of all Supreme Court decisions happened in 1989, when a divided Court allowed flag burning as protected free speech.
Because of this judicial activism which repeatedly overturned the democratic process and state constitutional amendments, those opposed to same-sex marriage wanted the Supreme Court to over-rule these federal courts of appeals.
Over at least the previous twenty-five years the Court has consistently been one of the more popular institutions in the country. What’s been going on to change this?
A plausible answer is: partisanship.
And, the Supreme Court, and this country, was changed by a British subject, John Marshall.
One of the most significant periods during the history of the Court was the tenure of Chief Justice John Marshall (1801 to 1835). In the landmark case Marbury v. Madison (1803), Marshall held that the Supreme Court could overturn a law passed by Congress if it violated the Constitution, legally cementing the power of judicial review. The Marshall Court also made several important decisions relating to federalism. Marshall took a broad view of the powers of the federal government—in particular, the interstate commerce clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. For instance, in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Court ruled that the interstate commerce clause and other clauses permitted Congress to create a national bank, even though the power to create a bank is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Similarly, in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the Court found that the interstate commerce clause permitted Congress to regulate interstate navigation.