Final answer:
The Supreme Court assumed the power of judicial review in the Marbury v. Madison case, a power not explicitly stated in the Constitution but justified as an implied check on the other branches of government. The infrequent use of this power to invalidate conflicting laws is debated as either an overreach or a necessary function. The Court's influence is substantial but subject to the checks and balances system.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of whether the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds by assuming the power of judicial review is rooted in the landmark 1803 case Marbury v. Madison. Judicial review is the process where the courts evaluate whether a legislative or executive action is in accordance with the Constitution. Although the Constitution itself is silent on the matter, judicial review has been justified as an implied power necessary for the judiciary to fulfill its role as a check on the other branches of government.
The expansion of judicial review over time has enabled the Supreme Court to invalidate federal and state laws in conflict with the Constitution, although this power is infrequently exercised. Critics argue that by creating quasi-legislation, the Supreme Court has exhibited judicial activism and overstepped its original mandate. Supporters, however, see judicial review as a critical function that safeguards the Constitution and maintains the balance of power among the branches of government.
Whether the Supreme Court has grown too powerful is a topic of debate. The Court does have significant influence, but it operates within a system of checks and balances, including limits on when it can exercise judicial review and the potential for impeachment of justices. It is essential to consider these factors when assessing if the Court has extended beyond its constitutional authority.