Read on Twitter
so I’ve seen this asked a lot and to put a long story very very short James Madison originally wanted this thing called the Council of Revision to make sure that the laws created by the Legislative were just but like 99% of the other framers were really against it and so they 1/2 https://twitter.com/jubilantjo/status/1307797114538389511
2/2 were left without that kind of system. The Council of Revision would have been a sort of preemptive judicial review, while we now have a sort of subsequent judicial review. Also it’s up for debate in some sense whether the SC was supposed to have judicial review at all.
sorry I’m actually gonna do a 3rd tweet but yeah in Marbury v Madison Justice Marshall (I think) kind of grabbed the power of judicial review for the SC by relenting some other powers, which is partly how we ended up with the current system
I am by no means an expert in any of this, as I’ve said in a previous tweet I took one con law class and it really means nothing in the grand scheme of things. I do think it’s important to try to share this context though because I was never taught about the Council of Revision
I really encourage people to read up on this (partly because I think it’s interesting but also because the context helps us understand the system we’re up against currently) and if anyone wants me to share my notes from my class on this stuff just dm me! I’m happy to answer any
questions or share resources and if anything I said is incorrect in any way please feel free to comment and correct me!
Also I realize this thread got super off track I kind of got lost in my thoughts but I think the reason the president nominates is for the whole balance of power stuff the framers were trying to do. I think they also imagined that the court would always be just because they would
be nominated by one branch and approved by the other. I honestly don’t know how I feel about voting in justices, but I do think the current system is failing us and it needs to change.
