Marshall deliberately endowed the judicial branch with this ability in the hope that it would ensure that the other branches of government always followed the Constitution. On the other hand, the political question doctrine seems to leave the “last word” to the political branches. The doctrine is designed to assist the judiciary in its efforts to avoid unnecessary involvement in conflicts between branches of the federal government. For example, in Baker v. Because of the Supreme Court, the Court emphasized that the political question doctrine rests primarily on the separation of powers. When a question touches on one of the other two branches of government, it poses a political question. This case set a precedent that, in these circumstances, the Court will not respond to such an inquiry without additional clarification from the legislative and executive branches. Returning to the idea of ​​justiciability, we can conclude that some issues are simply better resolved through political processes. The Supreme Court and all other judicial systems must respect this assertion in order to preserve their own integrity. When these two historic management policies are followed and respected by all three branches of government, we find ourselves faced with a somewhat harmonious connection between the judiciary and politics. It is a way in which our nation