Is the Supreme Court Doing Congress's Job? The Debate on Judicial Overreach

In this episode of The Optimistic American, host Paul Johnson sits down with James Phillips, a law professor at BYU and the Constitutional Government Initiative Director at the Wheatley Institute. The conversation dives into Phillips' thought-provoking theory on “juristocracy”—the idea that the Supreme Court has assumed an overactive role in shaping American policy, thereby undermining the role of Congress and, by extension, the people's voice in democracy.

Topics Discussed in the Video:

The Concept of Juristocracy: James Phillips introduces his concept of juristocracy, explaining how the Supreme Court’s expanded role in deciding key political and moral issues is shifting power away from Congress, leading to an imbalance in American democracy.

Historical Context and Modern Implications: The discussion explores how the framers of the Constitution envisioned Congress as the most powerful branch, responsible for addressing contentious issues. Phillips uses historical examples, such as the Dred Scott decision and the civil rights movement, to illustrate the dangers of over-relying on the courts.

Chevron Doctrine and Judicial Overreach: Phillips and Johnson discuss the Chevron Doctrine and its implications, particularly in how it has allowed agencies to interpret laws, often at the expense of the individual's rights. Phillips argues for a return to a more restrained judicial role, advocating for Congress to reclaim its lawmaking responsibilities.

The Impact of Partisan Primaries and Political Polarization: The conversation delves into how the current primary system fosters extreme positions within both major political parties, making compromise and effective legislation more difficult. Phillips suggests reforms that could restore balance and reduce polarization.

Originalism, Textualism, and the Future of the Court: Finally, Phillips discusses his originalist and textualist approach to interpreting the Constitution and how this contrasts with both liberal and conservative judicial activism. The episode touches on the growing movement for "common good constitutionalism" and its implications for the future of American jurisprudence.