AO1: Judicial Review remains politically accepted Judicial review grants the Court power to overrule any state or federal law without effective checks, even those with widespread public support AO3: therefore the Court’s power is imperial in nature and there is not another institution that can affect this, it is all powerful in how it acts and not even the voters can influence its decisions. AO1: the Court is willing to overrule elected branches of government the Supreme Court is unelected and yet can overrule Congress or the President striking down the laws made by these branches and in doing so the Supreme Court is overruling those with a democratic and popular mandate AO3: this is clear evidence of how it behaves in an imperial way as there seem to be no checks and balances, and the other institutions are powerless to curb the actions of the Court. AO1: Constitutional Amendments are rare but are the only way of overturning a Supreme Court decision the amendments process requires such bipartisanship and large majorities that it has happened only once in the Court’s history and so the lack of checks allows the Court to exercise vast power with few restrictions AO3: therefore the Court is clearly imperial as the mechanism for control is so cumbersome it is ineffective and there are no moves to reform this process and make the Court more accountable. AO1: some recent cases have only a tenuous basis in the Constitution judicial activism often goes beyond the literal wording, which places considerable power over 300 million people in the hands of just nine unelected justices AO3: consequently this is clear evidence that the Court is acting imperially by creating more power for itself and that there is not any restriction to this power. AO1: the only way to remove a judge abusing this power is impeachment. impeachment is difficult to do and seldom used, therefore allowing judges to act without fear of repercussion AO3: thus representing a clear signal that the Court is imperial in nature as this mechanism of control is ineffective and means that it can exert its power without any real consequences.

AO1: there has been a decline in the number of cases heard in recent years the decline in the number of cases restricts its impact on US politics at both state and national level, meaning its power is limited in its actual impact AO3: therefore the Court is not really imperial in nature as its power is diminishing and is reliant on the cases coming to it and it has no control over that. AO1: an increasingly conservative Court since 2005 has acted with greater deference to elected branches the Court relies on the elected branches to enforce its rulings and this upholds the democratic mandate of the American people, as well as allowing elected branches the choice over enforcement AO3: consequently this is clearly not imperial in nature as beyond the rulings it has no power of enforcement and is relying on other factors and the American people have power over it. AO1: the Constitution still restrains its rulings the Court is able to interpret from the Constitution only, regardless of justices’ personal or political opinion and this restricts the ability of the Court to act with judicial activism AO3: these factors, therefore, ultimately limit its impact so the Court cannot be imperial as there are clear restrictions on its power to act freely. AO1: there is usually only a handful of landmark cases each year there has been no increase in the number of landmark cases compared to previous Courts, which were equally willing to overturn government, decisions AO3: thus the Court is not as powerful as before and therefore it cannot be considered as imperial because the current Court has been less influential. AO1: stare decisis remains a principle of the Court, which limits its power. as it is largely bound to follow previous Court decisions, this acts as an unofficial check on the Court’s power, restricting its ability to become quasi-legislative AO3: therefore this is a factor that shows it cannot be imperial as there are checks and restrictions on its power, and previous case law means that its future decisions are bound and it does not have total freedom to act.