The Great Decision
I just finished a great book this afternoon on the famous Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison. The Great Decision is a very readable account of the politics of the early 1800s and how John Marshall established what we know today as judicial review.
Although judicial review seems a given today, in the early days of our nation many politicians (including President Jefferson) believed each branch of government had a co-equal ability to interpret the Constitution. Thus, if the Executive Branch thought a particular law was unconstitutional it could refuse to comply with it. In Jefferson's view, the Supreme Court could not tell Congress or the Executive how to interpret the Constitution. In reading this account of the politics of the time, you get the sense that the path our country took could have been quite different had it not been for John Marshall and Marbury.
I've been thinking quite a bit lately about how a country creates an independent judiciary and what it means to have a constitution. Here in Azerbaijan, and many post-Soviet states, people from the outside came in to "help" create constitutional documents. On paper, these constitutions look quite a bit like western constitutions. They create three branches of government, guarantee individual liberties, and speak in platitudes about the importance of democracy. Yet in practice many of the Soviet-era traditions continue.
Several months ago I went to the Baku Appellate Court to hear arguments in a case on which I had done some work. As we entered the courthouse there was an older woman who was in an uncontrollable rage. She was on the ground screaming as police were trying to get her to stand up and move her off the grounds. I turned to my colleague and asked him what she was saying. She was screaming, "this is not justice" repeatedly.
I can't get that image out of my head. Almost every day I hear stories about the futility of taking cases to court because the scales of justice simply don't work. I certainly don't have the answers on how you take a judiciary steeped on the ways of the Soviet Union and turn it into a functioning independent body. But I particularly appreciated this passage in The Great Decision:
We got to where we are today in America based on a little wisdom and alot of luck. (Or maybe alot of wisdom and a little luck.) And I certainly don't think we've cornered the market on creating good government or that our way is the only way. But in reading The Great Decision I was struck with great appreciation for those founders who put us on a pretty good path.
Although judicial review seems a given today, in the early days of our nation many politicians (including President Jefferson) believed each branch of government had a co-equal ability to interpret the Constitution. Thus, if the Executive Branch thought a particular law was unconstitutional it could refuse to comply with it. In Jefferson's view, the Supreme Court could not tell Congress or the Executive how to interpret the Constitution. In reading this account of the politics of the time, you get the sense that the path our country took could have been quite different had it not been for John Marshall and Marbury.
I've been thinking quite a bit lately about how a country creates an independent judiciary and what it means to have a constitution. Here in Azerbaijan, and many post-Soviet states, people from the outside came in to "help" create constitutional documents. On paper, these constitutions look quite a bit like western constitutions. They create three branches of government, guarantee individual liberties, and speak in platitudes about the importance of democracy. Yet in practice many of the Soviet-era traditions continue.
Several months ago I went to the Baku Appellate Court to hear arguments in a case on which I had done some work. As we entered the courthouse there was an older woman who was in an uncontrollable rage. She was on the ground screaming as police were trying to get her to stand up and move her off the grounds. I turned to my colleague and asked him what she was saying. She was screaming, "this is not justice" repeatedly.
I can't get that image out of my head. Almost every day I hear stories about the futility of taking cases to court because the scales of justice simply don't work. I certainly don't have the answers on how you take a judiciary steeped on the ways of the Soviet Union and turn it into a functioning independent body. But I particularly appreciated this passage in The Great Decision:
Chief Justice John Roberts likes to tell the story of a Russian judge attending a conference in Europe. When the Russian judge said that he would like to emulate the American judicial system, a European judge sneered, "Why did you come all the way here if you just want a can of Coke?" The Russian judge replied, "Actually, I do not like Coke. I like my wine French, my beer German, my vodka Russian, and my judicial institutions American."I'm not sure all Russian judges would agree with this sentiment. But there is a certain respect for the American legal system in this part of the world and for the ability of courts to impartially decide cases. (Excepting the courts in my hometown that recently sent hundreds of kids to juvenile detention for kick-backs.)
We got to where we are today in America based on a little wisdom and alot of luck. (Or maybe alot of wisdom and a little luck.) And I certainly don't think we've cornered the market on creating good government or that our way is the only way. But in reading The Great Decision I was struck with great appreciation for those founders who put us on a pretty good path.
Labels: Book Review



