'Legitimacy' would be the more precise idea to use in evaluating whether a court has the power to entertain a particular kind of lawsuit or party or subject matter. Trying a divorce case in Small Claims Court would be illegitimate. More broadly speaking, this would make the resulting decision 'unjust' on power grounds regardless of the merits.
To avoid confusion, one might view the matter of Supreme Court jurisdiction as a fight over legitimacy before one gets to argue the merits of the case. Before we get to the question of whether we can invoke the Court's power, we also have to be concerned as to whether the party bringing the action has standing, and then whether the issue is justiciable.
So, if we're talking power, 'legitimacy' might be the better word choice, while if we're talking merits, we're more likely talking more about fairness, equity, and justice in the usual sense.
Prerequisite to the exercise of the power of judicial review is standing and justiciability. Add them all together (standing, justiciability and power) and then you are free to argue the merits. One of the deficiencies counsel sometimes exhibit in arguing to the Supreme Court is a tendency to argue the merits as an inducement to find standing, justiciability or power.
The tendency might be excusable when one anticipates that some or several of the justices might be seeking to deny these prerequisites out of concern over having to decide on the merits, which Justice Marshall, in Marbury, referred to as an unsought duty, "this bitter cup," in other words. Maybe he had his tongue in his cheek.
Comments