Jamelle Bouie argues that the Supreme Court’s role has drifted from interpreting law to defining constitutional meaning, a shift that emerged only in the last half‑century. While courts resolve cases, the broader shape of the political community belongs to the public and elected officials. This conflation fuels a form of judicial supremacy that concentrates power in a small, self‑interested tribunal.

In 1857 the Court’s Dred Scott decision sparked the Republican Party’s birth, prompting legislators to declare it their duty to overturn rulings that threatened liberty. Bouie reminds readers that earlier constitutional meaning arose in state conventions and public gatherings, not solely in courts. The 19th‑century Colored Conventions, led by Frederick Douglass, articulated a democratic vision that shaped the 13th‑15th Amendments.

Bouie’s essay warns that when judicial activism by a handful of justices dictates constitutional direction, businesses face unpredictable regulatory shifts. Lawmakers and civic movements, from historic conventions to modern advocacy groups, remain essential checks on that power. Recognizing this balance restores a marketplace where policy emerges from political debate rather than court pronouncements. Investors watch these dynamics closely, as court‑driven policy can reshape sectors overnight.