The in-class exercise six discussion was helpful. The discussion focused on the role of the justices in impacting social change, while also focusing on the overall theme of the judicial policy. During the exercise, there were several different viewpoints that were discussed. Personally, I do feel that justices have a role in social policy but not separately from the people or other breaches of government. The justices are tools or avenues used by society to legitimize a final decision or a flip in society's attitude. As mentioned before, the justices do have an impact on social change. However, I do not think it is due to the court itself. First, the courts must be presented with controversy. For example, cases are brought before them. For some cases to come up laws probably differ so drastically in states that …show more content…
For instance, in Obergefell v. Hodges there was a considerable controversy, state laws on issuing marriage licenses were different, and there were shifts in society's feelings. Second, the justices are strategic and do not wish to decrease their power. Therefore, I feel that they are aware of the public's general ruling preferences on particularly controversial cases. The courts power seems to rest in its ability to be respected by society and the other institutions. For example, the courts cannot control the purse or the sword. It cannot hold funds from the States, if they do not comply nor can they physically enforce rulings. Therefore, the courts must rely on the respect or prestige of the institution. If the justices/court did not have the weight of the institution backing their ruling, they could easily be ignored by the public, legislative and executive branch. Third, justices are needed due to them providing an avenue to addresses legal controversies. For example, in the lead up to Brown v. Board laws could have been modified in congress, society could have disregarded the laws, or