Supreme Court Law Pros And Cons

3225 Words13 Pages

INTRODUCTION
Given what I have learned about the functions and characteristics of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Conseil Constitutionnel of France – in the context of their respective systems of civil, criminal, administrative and constitutional adjudication – I will discuss the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system in offering meaningful remedies for possible violations of constitutionally protected individual rights from the frame of reference of a United States law student. As a Founding Father, I plan to adopt a body of law founded upon the strengths of both bodies of law. In doing so, I will consider, in order, what characteristics of each body of law is best suited to rule on issues of constitutionality, taking …show more content…

In the United States, a Supreme Court decision is binding on all lower federal courts. State courts are only subject to follow a Supreme Court decision when it decides an issue of federal law, such as fundamental individual rights. Thus, one can say that Supreme Court decisions serve as de jure precedent for these courts. However, because no state can guarantee less protection than that granted by the Constitution of the United States, Supreme Court decisions also serve as de facto precedent by guiding the state legislature in drafting legislation in accordance with the Federal Constitution. Also, state court judges may use Supreme Court decisions are persuasive precedent in order to avoid getting overturned; this is part of the fear I was previously referring to, and it is a reason why it is so important that the institution reviewing constitutional issues be part of the judiciary hierarchy. Parties may not appeal the Supreme Court’s decisions; only the Supreme Court can overturn its own decisions. As previously mentioned, when the Court denies a party’s petition for writ of certiorari, the lower court’s decision is