Changes

The first case of judicial supremacy was the 1958 case [[Cooper v. Aaron]], which asserted that because of the 1803 decision in [[Marbury v. Madison]], that "This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system."

The first case of judicial supremacy was the 1958 case [[Cooper v. Aaron]], which asserted that because of the 1803 decision in [[Marbury v. Madison]], that "This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system."

The ''Cooper'' case justifies this position by taking one quote out of ''Marbury'', while disregarding the whole of the decision.  ''Marbury'' is actually quite modest, despite the claims of the supremacists, and asserts that Congress is not constitutionally capable of extending the Court's jurisdiction further than Constitutional proscription.<ref>[http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420389/not-law-land The Myth of Judicial Supremacy], [[National Review]]</ref>

The ''Cooper'' case justifies this position by taking one quote out of ''Marbury'', while disregarding the whole of the decision.  ''Marbury'' is actually quite modest, despite the claims of the supremacists, and asserts that Congress is not constitutionally capable of extending the Court's jurisdiction further than Constitutional proscription.<ref>[https://www.nationalreview.com/article/420389/not-law-land The Myth of Judicial Supremacy], [[National Review]]</ref>

But what the supremacists are not looking to do is stay within the framework of Constitutionality, instead, they are trying to break free from its bonds and make the judiciary the most powerful branch.  One author notes of judicial supremacy that "the court defines effective constitutional meaning such that other government officials are bound to adhere not only to the Court's disposition of a specific case but also to the Court's constitutional reasoning."<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=0PG-DzJjfvYC&pg=PA7 Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History]</ref>

But what the supremacists are not looking to do is stay within the framework of Constitutionality, instead, they are trying to break free from its bonds and make the judiciary the most powerful branch.  One author notes of judicial supremacy that "the court defines effective constitutional meaning such that other government officials are bound to adhere not only to the Court's disposition of a specific case but also to the Court's constitutional reasoning."<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=0PG-DzJjfvYC&pg=PA7 Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History]</ref>