ABSTRACT
Some concluding observations from a recent casebook for undergraduates on the Supreme Court's policy role might serve as a useful introduction to this assignment:
The salient fact is that in major substantive and procedural areas of constitutional law the Supreme Court has been a powerful political force performing multiple political roles.
This reality is what makes perplexing the admonitions of distinguished justices like Frankfurter and Harlan in Baker v. Carr that the Court should maintain "complete detachment, in fact and in appearance, from political entanglements" and abstain "from injecting itself into the clash of political forces in political settlements." Its very designation as a wielder of "the judicial power" by Article III of the Constitution was bound to make the Court a vital force in the formation and implementation of national policy. . . .
In sum, the Constitution made the justices neither philosopher-kings nor robots, neither charismatic leaders nor eunuchs; rather it provided powers coordinate with the other major branches of government through which their strengths, fallibilities, and aspirations as human beings and conscientious judges could be manifested. 1
