ABSTRACT
The debate over judicial review stems from the Supreme Court's public policy decisions. When the high court renders a decision that affects a majority of the people or a large segment thereof, the justices are making public policy. Judicial independence or rule of law competes with public accountability or majoritarian democracy for the attention of the justices. To ensure judicial independence, the Constitution dictates that justices of the Supreme Court and all federal judges be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate and not elected, as are most of their state counterparts. State cases based upon explicit, independent, and adequate state grounds are largely unreviewable by the nation's high bench. These limitations tend to keep the Court out of many pressing political disputes, helping to perpetuate the justices' independence. Federalism also plays a checking role on the independence of the Supreme Court.
