Civics question

>>3318190
Its reactionary to the other two branches policies and its members are chosen by the other two branches

That being said, a single ruling can upset a whole area of law.

>>3318190
It's objectively the most powerful. But the only person ever to understand this great truth was Earl Warren.

The supeme court can only rule if someone in a case has 'standing'. If no case about law is brought to the supreme court, they are impotent. Moreover, the supreme court's authority over constitutional law.... is not mentioned in the constitution. They sort of decided they could and now it's establish via precedent. If the legislative branch wanted to, they could pass a law to reign in the supreme court's authority without eve needing an amendment.

>>3318655
>the supreme court's authority over constitutional law.... is not mentioned in the constitution. They sort of decided they could and now it's establish via precedent
Did Marshall cause this, or did it come later?

>>3318663
Marshall, 100%. You'll see stuff about 'the founding fathers intending' but it's not in the constitution, so it's mutable.

>>3318190
Because

A) It's members are appointed by other branches of government
B) It relies on said branches to enforce its rulings
C) Its rulings can, in all but a very few cases, be overwritten by subsequent action by the other two branches. Consider what happened with the ADA rewrite when Congress decided that they didn't like the outcome of those early 90s rulings.
D) When tit does rule, it is often in a completely function-serving capacity. A huge part of how it arrives at decisions are wrapped up in questions like "What does Congress want?" "What did the president want?" "What does this three letter agency intend?"

>>3318655
Article fucking 3 nigger. That's what's meant by "invested" as opposed to something like "created" or "established", the supreme court inherited all the powers of common law courts from England.