I watched a video is about David A. Kaplan talking about his book called The Most Dangerous Branch: Inside the Supreme Court’s Assault on the Constitution. In the video, Kaplan talks about his book and his argument though discussing the court case and the problems in the United States. He mentions that the Court involves and intervene in American life too much. He thinks the Court should not get involved so often; however, he supports the Court intervenes some areas but not all areas such as protecting those unpopular opinions, because, in his opinion, we do not expect other two branches to defend some areas like the crimes’ rights.

The video reminds me of the weakness of the Supreme Court. Even though the Supreme Court strengthens its power by establishing the Judicial Review, the Constitution does not define what it suppose to do. Under the Checks and Balances system, the Supreme Court has the power to declare the president and the Congress unconstitutional; however, its power also is limited by the other two branches. For instance, the president can nominate the judges, and Congress might control the Court because there are two dominant parties competing the power in the government.

On other hands, as Kaplan says, the Supreme Court’s involvement could distort the presidential election because they think the new president will nominate the “right” judges. In other words, sometimes the Court has too much power. Some decision of the Court will make it run the country, and it is possible that a single vote in the Court will determine the key social and political policy. In my opinion, I think that what the Court does is required by the Checks and Balances system. Since the three branches share the power and influence each other, how we draw a clear line for the Court and its duties?