Kittens Kick the Giggle Blue Robot All Summer

I found it interesting that in the 1800s Supreme Court justices had to travel to different court cases around the country rather than the cases coming to them. It just goes to show how weak the judicial branch was back when the country was first created due to the lack of clarity in the constitution about the purpose and powers of the Supreme Court. Additionally, I was fascinated by the way in which John Marshall set the precedent for many of the powers and traditions of the Supreme Court we see today, such as wearing black robes and judges living together away from their families. In a time in which the executive branch could have easily taken power over the judicial, Marshall ensured that the democratic ideals expressed in the constitution regarding separation of powers and checks and balances would maintain a foothold in society by establishing the Supreme Court as a powerful force in the government. I wonder, had Marshall not made the decision he did in the Marbury v. Madison case thereby establishing the power of judicial review, would the judicial branch have been completely overruled by the executive branch? If so, would the country end up turning back into a monarchy/dictatorship rather than the constitutional republic it is today? Either way, I certainly agree that Marshall’s dedication to democratic ideals(he wrote a 100-page decision just to ensure the court's authority) and decision in the Marbury v. Madison case was certainly the defining supreme court case which set the foundation for the powers of the judicial branch. In this regard, Marshall is similar to George Washington in that they each held a position of power yet used it to set precedents in order to uphold the democratic ideals of the country as well as the principles expressed in the constitution, by serving as president for only two terms or establishing the power of judicial review. I also completely agree with Marshall when he declared that by not following the law there exists anarchy: had Marbury been allowed to have his case ruled on by the Supreme Court, it would have undermined the power of the Constitution and thus erode it’s credibility since the Constitution states that a case is not allowed to be taken directly to the Supreme Court. I do, however, disagree with the message at the end of the podcast, which states that liberty lies in the hearts of men and laws are false hopes. While it is true that laws themselves do not hold authority unless they are followed, in a society such as the U.S which is centered around upholding the laws and ideals set forth by the Constitution, laws do indeed have immense power over citizens. Take the first and second amendments for example--- both have sparked tremendous debate from both sides of the political spectrum regarding how these amendments should be interpreted and whether or not they should be changed in regards to modern-day issues within society.