A Politicized Court

Chapter 14 focuses on the Court system in the United States. Supreme Court justices are often labeled conservative, liberal, or moderate and are appointed to the bench by the President in power. I believe it is important for these judges’ jurisprudence to be as moderate as possible given that their role is to interpret the Constitution and make decisions that affect the lives of all U.S. citizens. It seems problematic that many justices fall within the conservative and liberal categories and have track records that show votes strictly catering to the liberal or conservative ideology, as Irons showed of Justice Rehnquist. This leads me to think that SCOTUS justices are appointed to serve the interests of the person who appointed them rather than to serve justice for the people of this country.

Optimistically, “party-line voting” by Supreme Court justices may be attributed to each justices’ personal philosophy of jurisprudence – they genuinely believe their opinion to be the most just in each case. However, I think the appointment of judges with strong conservative or liberal opinions is problematic for our nation despite whether or not their opinions are genuine in the sense that I just discussed. Whenever a spot opens in the Supreme Court, everyone knows what to expect from each of the “candidates” for the position and the chosen man or woman is chosen to advance the political goals of the current President.

My opinion is that this system is flawed. There is no room for “politics” in the Judicial Branch.

7 Responses to "A Politicized Court"

Esteban Lara says:

December 5, 2017 at 8:03 pm

This post raises an interesting point and I do believe that you’re correct in assuming that Justices are only serving/following the ideals and morals of the president who appointed them. It’s safe to assume that an election of justices would be unnecessary and possible counterproductive because regular citizens wouldn’t know how to choose a certain judge and perhaps they would elect the most charismatic one, not the most qualified. If the justices are elected by congress, then it raises the issue of separation of powers (I believe that justices are appointed by the president as a way to check the legislative branch). It might be possible to find a better way to appoint or select justices but for I believe it’s better if they’re appointed by the president.
Katherine Fell says:

December 6, 2017 at 2:43 pm

I respectfully disagree with what you’re saying in your post. While justices are directly appointed by the president, they serve for life, long after the person who appointed them leaves office. Justices are not appointed solely on their political ideology. They are appointed based on how they interpret the Constitution, because all Supreme Court cases deal with an issue that questions constitutionality. The Constitution states that it is the president’s responsibility to fill vacancies on the bench, and given the power of the judiciary and the checks and balances system in our government, why wouldn’t the president appoint someone who they believe will make decisions that serve in the interest of the country? The American people elect the president by giving him or her all of the responsibilities that come with being the head of the executive branch, and so the justices that are appointed by the president are also transitively appointed by the people as well. For example, while many people disliked Donald Trump’s attitude and policies, they voted for him because of the vacant seat on the Supreme Court, and they new that Trump would appoint someone who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, which would validate their opinions on abortion in the United States.
I think that a bench that includes only moderate judges is very unwise. There needs to be a mix of different opinions of constitutional interpretations so that there is representation on both sides, and then having moderates in the middle who can act as swing votes. A bench with only moderate justices will have people without any grounded beliefs on how the Constitution should be interpreted, and therefore, no decisions will be made since no one will be able to take a stance.
Declan Horrigan says:

December 6, 2017 at 9:24 pm

I think you’re post brings up many interesting points, the one I would like to focus on is the partisanship of the judges. I agree with you and think that it is very important for the justices to be fairly moderate. I would go even further as to say that moderate would be the wrong term to use because it is still affiliated with the concept of political parties. I believe that the justices should have no connection to or stance regarding political parties at all and should base all of their decisions on simply whatever is more constitutional in each different case. They should go into every individual case with a completely blank slate, a completely unbiased mind, and that is the only way they will be able to accurately and justly interpret the Constitution to achieve the best, most fair, and most just results. However, on the other hand, I think it would be a mistake to appoint a just who has incredibly radical views that is incredibly unpredictable and unstable. The justices need to be level-headed individuals who will give their honest, unbiased effort to achieve justice.
Daniel Bonaventura says:

December 7, 2017 at 4:38 pm

I do not believe that have non partisan judges would be possible or beneficial to our Judicial system. First off, everyone holds some sort of intrinsic or political beliefs. This is especially the case with someone who spends much of their life around political actors and the government as a supreme court judge does. However, their job is not to advocate for or to represent the views of either political party or ideology. Their job is simply to interpret and enforce the constitution to the best of their ability. That being said, as we know there are different ways of interpreting the Constitution and through this a judges political slant, or the political slant of the times may come out. Because of this the focus should not be on having judges that are mindless or moderate to politics, but instead on having a lot of diversity among judges both in demographics and in political ideology. This as we can see from or supreme court today this allows for a commitment to the constitution.
Jackson Puckey says:

December 7, 2017 at 5:14 pm

While the justices do often get “political,” day-to-day politics doesn’t actually affect them after their confirmation. As the job is set for life and there is little recourse for judicial removal, justices generally have the freedom to act as they please after confirmation. In this way, they are exclusively acting on their own beliefs and interpretations of the Constitution, rather than the feelings of any constituency, the need for reelection, or any monetary gain. While this wasn’t what you were addressing in your post, it does feel important to point out that the Supreme Court candidates act exclusively on their own judgement, with significantly fewer outside influences than other institutions, like Congress and the President.
As for their politics, it is quite impossible to decide on some of these issues without consulting one’s politics. Take Roe v. Wade, an extremely controversial case among the public. While a pro-life justice in the modern court has little legal recourse against abortion rights, that case was seminal and universal in its coverage of abortion. If, for example, you believe abortion to be murder, than it would be impossible to extricate that belief from your decision-making. Similarly, if you believe in abortion as a fundamental right, you will most likely vote on the issue based on how you feel on the issue. The Constitution is not an all-encompassing document. Abortion would have been a foreign word to the founders, so there is no way they could have built provisions against it into the governing document. Because of this, justices were forced to interpret the Constitution when deciding this issue. It is entirely impossible to extricate one’s own beliefs and ideals from the process of analysis and interpretation of such a document. Thus, the justices simply must take their opinions into account when making a decision.
Kevin Todd says:

December 7, 2017 at 5:56 pm

I think you raise an interesting argument regarding the flaws with our nations judicial branch of government. I disagree with the point you made that Supreme Court justices are appointed to serve the interests of the person who appointed them rather than to serve justice for the people of this country. Sure maybe they serve the interests of those who appointed them within the first few years but eventually that will fade away as presidents change every term. Therefore the justices are there long after the president’s term. I think justices have their own opinions and views towards subjects just like everyone else does. It is tough to immediately conclude that they only serve the interests of those who appointed them. I think it is good to have a bench that disagree with each other because that means that they view situations differently. This is a good thing because it will allow for discussion and arguments across the bench to ultimately come to the best conclusion possible. It would be bad if all of them agreed with each other in everything because if there was a radical idea or a bad way of interpreting a situation and they all agreed with each other it would be tough for anyone to reverse their viewpoints.
Stella Von Spreckelsen says:

December 7, 2017 at 7:47 pm

I agree with you that the judiciary branch has become a lot more politicized because the president appointing them is obviously either a democrat or republican so therefore they have pre-disposed biases on who they should elect to the justice court. However, I don’t believe that just because a judge was appointed their sole purpose is to support the president’s wishes because this has not been the case. Even two liberals might have differing opinions on the interpretation of the constitution. But again, I do agree with you that the judges appointed should not have strong backgrounds in conservative or liberal values because politics gets in the way of constitution interpretation a lot. I agree with what Jackson commented on this post that these judges are not acting the way they do and judging for a monetary raise because they are appointed for life and are not receiving pay raise for appeasing the president they were appointed by. While they might share similar values as the president and similar interpretations of the constitution, they are at the end of the day, acting on their own judgement of how they believe the constitution should be read.

Comments are closed.