1-Does the Supreme Court provide effective protection of civil liberties?

Paragraph 1: Does the Court have the formal power to protect rights?

Explanation:
The Constitution outlines a wide range of civil liberties, particularly in the Bill of Rights, and the Supreme Court can use judicial review to defend these rights by striking down laws or executive actions.

Evidence:
In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Court used judicial review to desegregate schools. In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), it legalised same-sex marriage based on the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

Stronger Argument (Against Effectiveness):
However, the Court lacks enforcement power and relies on the executive and states to implement its rulings—undermining the practical protection of rights.

Explanation:
The Court can rule in favour of rights, but if enforcement is delayed or resisted—especially by state governments—then rights may still be violated. Additionally, civil liberties not explicitly outlined in the Constitution receive no guaranteed protection.

Evidence:
After Brown, Southern states delayed desegregation for years. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), the Court overturned Roe v. Wade, removing federal protection for abortion rights—illustrating the limits of constitutional interpretation and enforcement.

Paragraph 2: Does the Constitution's ambiguity help or hinder civil liberties?

Explanation:
The Constitution’s vague language, such as in the 1st and 14th Amendments, gives justices interpretive flexibility to expand rights in line with modern values and needs.

Evidence:
In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Court recognised a right to privacy, despite it not being explicitly stated in the Constitution. This became the basis for future rights such as in Roe v. Wade.

Stronger Argument (Against Effectiveness):
However, the same ambiguity allows for ideologically driven rulings, which can limit or remove rights depending on the court’s composition.

Explanation:
With a conservative majority, the Court may interpret the Constitution narrowly and avoid recognising evolving rights. This ideological imbalance reduces the Court’s reliability in consistently protecting civil liberties.

Evidence:
The current Court’s conservative lean has led to decisions like Dobbs and expanded gun rights in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), both seen by critics as setbacks for civil liberties.

Paragraph 3: Does judicial philosophy impact civil liberties protection?

Explanation:
An activist Court is more willing to confront government overreach and proactively defend civil liberties, while a restrained Court avoids such interventions, often deferring to elected bodies.

Evidence:
The Warren Court (1953–1969), widely regarded as activist, issued landmark rulings protecting rights, including Miranda v. Arizona (1966), which introduced the right to remain silent.

Stronger Argument (Against Effectiveness):
Yet, restraint—often linked to conservative ideology—can result in deference to majoritarian decisions even when they infringe civil liberties.

Explanation:
Restrained justices may uphold laws that limit rights if they believe their role is not to interfere with legislatures. This can allow political power to override individual freedoms.

Evidence:
In Trump v. Hawaii (2018), the Court upheld the president’s travel ban despite concerns about religious discrimination, with the majority applying a restrained approach and deferring to executive authority.