Failings of the Supreme Court Structure

Chapter 14 discusses the United States Judicial system. The United State Court System is absolutely necessary in order to keep the three-prong government together. First off, the court’s role in checks and balances is essential to making sure neither of the other two branches has an excessive amount of power. The court is essential in constantly bringing our country back to its roots, the Constitution, throughout all steps of our progression as a country. Since all actions by the government are susceptible to judicial review, the Judiciary is constantly making sure the government’s actions are within the limits of their power and agree with what is allowed in the Constitution. The part of the Judiciary I would like to focus on is the Supreme Court which is the head of the 94 national district courts. I will be discussing some of the flaws in the Supreme Court’s structure that impede its ability to work at optimal level.

Although the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution to the best of their ability, there is some partisanship among members of the Supreme Court. Since there is nine justices total, there is always an imbalance in party-identification in the Supreme Court, there will always be a dominant party. This was a concern when Justice Scalia passed away before the 2016 election. The appointment of a new justice became one of the biggest questions during this election, further politicizing and polarizing this position of power. Most of the court’s 5-4 votes are usually split along ideological lines. This shows the power of having a majority vote. That 9th member of the Supreme Court is extremely influential in decision-making, causing an imbalance of power, especially if the Justice ends up having very extreme views.

In addition, Supreme Court justices are able to sit on the bench for the length of their entire lives if they choose to do so. In 1804, Samuel Chase became the first and only Supreme Court justice to be impeached because he was charged with acting in a partisan manner in his decision-making during several trials. In 1969, Abe Fortas became the first (and only) Supreme Court justice to resign because he was threatened with impeachment. 14 other federal judges have been impeached throughout our country’s history, for charges ranging from drunkenness on the bench to accepting bribes. This is obviously a slight concern because although these justices are expected to uphold the historic value of the Constitution, it does allow these elected officials to have an immense amount of power for much too long, without the threat of impeachment. This means that the same 7 justices, for the most part, while leade federal law approval and change throughout an entire generation, which can definitely be an impediment to progressive ideals. This is especially true if there are more conservative members in the Supreme Court than liberals.

http://www.history.com/news/ask-history/has-a-u-s-supreme-court-justice-ever-been-impeached

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/the-incredible-polarization-and-politicization-of-the-supreme-court/259155/

Yanbin Zhang says:

December 6, 2017 at 10:28 pm

As the highest federal court of the U.S, the supreme court plays as final interpreter of federal law including the United States Constitution. Even though supreme court could only acts within the context of case when it has jurisdiction, its influence to American political system and the whole country often extends far beyond that. The judgement of supreme court on some particular issue about abortion rights, labor union and LGBT rights would influence the public opinion or trigger contentious argument. Although the supreme court is supposed to stand out of the political parties as those framers intended, but now it has gradually become more polarized with the partisanship. The ruling from the supreme court become even predictable now since we will most likely see all the liberal justices vote as a bloc and the staunch conservatives do the same.
It is such a tradition that the president would appoint the new nominee for chief justice when there is a vacant position. But the party and president could still not predict the justice’s vote and this situation functioned to keep the supreme court depart from both parties. But it has been changed in the past decades. In the 2014–2015 term, every 5–4 decision the Court gave out was split perfectly along party lines. This, combined with the increase in 5–4 decisions, is an indicator of just how partisan the Supreme Court has become. This trend in supreme court actually reduced the authority of the court since it is possible to be regarded as a battlefield of two parties like the congress.
Another issue arose along with the partisanship in supreme court is the challenge of the legitimacy and ability of new chief justice. Because the justice in the supreme would vote along with the party he close to, having more seats in the supreme court may help the party for over decades. So nominating a person loyal to his party might be the prior standard for the president. And it would only produce more conflict between two parties ( like the drastic argument after Justice Scalia passed away) and reduce the credibility of the supreme court.

Camryn Travis says:

December 8, 2017 at 12:00 am

I think you bring up some really great points about the potential limitations of the Supreme Court. Think one of the biggest potential limitations is the length of term. While having a long-term in the Supreme Court creates a great sense of stability, as you mentioned, it has the potential to impede progression. One can infer from the well-documented evidence that Justices vote on specific party lines will prevent any legal change in topics that reflect political ideology against the majority’s party line. For example, a more liberal Supreme Court is what allowed cases such as Brown vs. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade. With a more conservative Court, it is highly probable that school segregation and women’s abortion rights would not have been passed when they were, potentially changing the entire American society we have today.

Grace Miller says:

December 8, 2017 at 6:53 pm

I think you’re mislead in believing that ideologies correlate with party identification. A more liberal Justice such as Ginsberg, may tend to read the Constitution as a living document, shifting with the views of the current populous, while Scalia, as you mentioned, may view the Constitution more strictly. This has been the case since Jefferson first mentioned the possibility of the Constitution changing over time in 1816. I think it’s important to recognize the justices appointed by Congress after Presidential recommendation are experts in their fields, very capable of separating personal biases from their work. However, I do think it’s interesting to watch the ideological schism become more defined, possibly as a result of party polarization in America. This phenomena is one to be closely watched in the upcoming years, especially with the splintering of both of our current parties.