We all learned about the three branches of the government in high school — the executive, the legislative and the judicial.

Recently, the executive and legislative branches get plenty of media attention between presidential elections and congressional scandals, while the judicial branch has gone largely unnoticed.

Throughout history, the judicial branch has played an important role in the federal government, but perhaps this may not be the case anymore. It seems the Supreme Court has declined in prominence.

John Marshall was the fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but defined how we view it. Marshall established the role of the Court as the branch of government that the process of judicial review, where Congressional laws can be reviewed and possibly ruled unconstitutional. The first case where this was relevant is the famous Marbury v Madison case in 1803.

The prominence of the Supreme Court set by Marshall carried over into the 20th and 21st centuries. Important cases such as Brown v Board of Education have altered the course of our country. In this case, the Supreme Court ordered the desegregation of schools.

If it were not for this case, segregated schools could have been around for a much longer time period. The Supreme Court also decided the outcome of the famed 2000 presidential election in the case of Bush v Gore.

However, over the past eight years, the Supreme Court has lost power and influence. Much of this decline in prominence is seen on the international level. A recent article by the New York Times reports “a diminishing number of foreign courts seem to pay attention the writings of American justices.”

This is because of our tarnished reputation around the world. Foreign courts will not cite a court whose nation doesn’t even view the federal government in a positive light.

The legitimacy of Supreme Court decisions has been altered over the past eight years.
Even political scientists have lost sight of the Supreme Court’s role. “In writing about the Court, many political scientists have a tendency to borrow understandings derived from the study of other institutions — like Congress or the executive branch — and apply them mechanically to the Court,” Ronald Kahn and Ken I. Kersch said in their book “The Supreme Court and American Political Development.”

Moving forward, the Supreme Court’s direction will be heavily affected by the coming presidential election.

John McCain has made it clear he would overturn Roe v Wade, the case was instrumental in legalizing abortion. Never before has the judicial branch had to answer to the executive branch. John Marshall set a precedence of operating a largely independent Court remained free from partisan politics.

McCain’s platform to overturn Roe v Wade would be overstepping these boundaries.

Besides, on an ironic note, McCain’s Website says, “As president, John McCain would nominate judges who understand the role of the Court is not to subvert the rights of the people by legislating from the bench.”

Meanwhile, Barack Obama runs on the platform of a transparent federal government, which could help bring the Supreme Court back into public vision.

Naturally as a Democrat, he would probably nominate liberal judges. This could upset the balance currently exists in the Court (there are currently four conservative and four liberal judges, that leaves one judge who is the swing vote).

But a balanced Court could be the most important thing our federal government could have.

Regardless of the outcome, this could be a new chapter in world history — a chapter where other nations govern themselves instead of looking to the precedents set in the American legal system.

It is a chapter where the role of the Supreme Court is on the brink of redefinition.

Andrew is out shopping for black robes, a wig and a gavel. He can receive inquiries for cases at andrew.hedlund@asu.edu.