Even if ‘co-equal,’ three branches serve unique role

NEWT GINGRICH challenges the belief that the Supreme Court is the final authority on the Constitution, and Jeff Jacoby says it’s about time ( “Supreme Court can’t be absolute,’’ Op-ed, Jan. 1). “The judiciary,’’ Jacoby writes, “is intended to be a co-equal branch of government, not a paramount one.’’ Surely he recognizes that the three branches of government serve unique roles. We don’t look to the Supreme Court to declare war or manage the federal budget. On the other hand, a primary responsibility of the Supreme Court is to enforce the Constitution when it is politically unpopular to do so. That is not a responsibility we would entrust to Congress.

Jacoby’s assertion that the branches should be “co-equal’’ is blind to this big picture. Citing the Dred Scott decision is equally specious. Yes, Dred Scott is recognized as one of the most flawed Supreme Court decisions ever. It is also a part of our history that made slavery legal, and over which we fought the Civil War.


Were a Gingrich president then, would he have sent federal marshals to seize the justices and force them to defend their decision before Congress? Or, since so many vocal Americans welcomed that decision, might a Gingrich have supported it, too?

Kenny Likis

Loading comments...
Real journalists. Real journalism. Subscribe to The Boston Globe today.
We hope you've enjoyed your free articles.
Continue reading by subscribing to Globe.com for just 99¢.
 Already a member? Log in Home
Subscriber Log In

We hope you've enjoyed your 5 free articles'

Stay informed with unlimited access to Boston’s trusted news source.

  • High-quality journalism from the region’s largest newsroom
  • Convenient access across all of your devices
  • Today’s Headlines daily newsletter
  • Subscriber-only access to exclusive offers, events, contests, eBooks, and more
  • Less than 25¢ a week
Marketing image of BostonGlobe.com
Marketing image of BostonGlobe.com