Political Preferences In Supreme Court Cases

The United States judicial branch to the general American public can seem insulated from politics, because of their adversarial system, that does not allow judges to choose their cases. The judicial branch unlike, their two counterparts, the legislative and executive at large rely on the respect of the American people and the heads of the two other branches. In appointing members of the federal judiciary, Presidents appoint members who resemble their political ideologies and their likelihood of confirmation in the Senate, the Senate confirms these members based on their performance on the litmus test and Senatorial courtesy. Courts, specifically the Supreme Court, make decisions based on the Constitution, but the legislative branch has the

There are two major factors that affect the confirmation process of a president’s nominees; one is party affiliation. Party affiliation is very important when the Senate is confirming a nominee, because Senate confirms nominees by a ⅔ vote. This could be very crucial to the president and his or her nominee, because if the majority of the Senate is part of the opposing party, this becomes difficult for the president to get his nominee confirmed. The second political factor is qualification to become a judge or justice. The Senate does not want an unqualified judge who does not know what he or she is doing. It is important to the Senate to approve someone who has experience in the judicial field than someone who has no experience at all. The

It takes time to reach the highest court in the country; currently the average Supreme Court justice age is nearly seventy years old. It is reasonable to think that biases may be hardened and unable to keep up with the popular opinion by this age. For example, take public approval of same-sex marriage, which in the six short years from 2009 to 2015 rose nearly twenty percent in the polls, bringing it to a 55% majority. How does a Supreme Court with a stagnant appointment system react to such a sudden sway in opinion? Apparently, surprisingly well. For whatever reason, the decisions of the Supreme Court seem to align with public opinion. For instance, in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, the supreme court reached a 5-4 majority in for same-sex marriage. Public opinion at the time was 55% in favor, and remarkably, the portion of justices in favor was within less than one percent of that value. Perhaps the Supreme Court acknowledges its role to interpret the Constitution through the eyes of the people, as Justice Kennedy describes. Or perhaps it is due to the powerful weight swing positions carry in the Supreme Court. Whatever the mechanism, the Supreme Court does a remarkable job of staying neck and neck with popular opinion.

Proponents of Judicial Elections argue that electing judges at a state level allows the judges to reconnect with the people in a closer way and to be more sensitive towards public opinion. However, the Judiciary system, unlike its other two counterparts, was not created to be a democratic institution. Instead, it was built to examine whether the government or the people are acting in accordance to law. Therefore, I oppose Judicial Elections for several reasons. One, it introduces partisanship to a supposedly impartial system and two, it risks disrupting the initial purpose of the Judiciary System which is to counterbalance the steps taken by the Congress and the Executive branch with the law.

Courts impact policy through how they interpret and apply the law. How the federal court wields their

What is also interesting to note, is that the balance of power and who ultimately gets seated on the Supreme court is decided on Capitol Hill. Up until this point in the review, there has been very little discussed about how the legislature plays into the decision process of how the justices are seated (Robertson, 2004). However, as it is critical for a sitting president to have a Supreme Court sided towards the president’s political affiliation, it is equally as important to have a legislature that will also seek to have the nominee on the panel of justices. The author suggests, that this hope is quickly diminished when during the presidency, the legislature’s majority is the opposing party. The author does an excellent job in communicating this dynamic in reflecting on President Clinton’s attempt to have his justice nominees appointed during his time in office (Burke, 1993). The issues of getting nominees approved was also driven by a number of critical turnovers within the office of the presidency. This point underscores that lobbying is not limited to companies and organizations but to the power of the president to push justice nominations through the system (p.44). Finally, another aspect that was discussed that hindered the process was that President Clinton did not hold his ground and in each instance where he faced resistance, the president would remove the candidate presenting another with the hope that the new nominee would pass the nominee process

This may be due to the great significance and power the Supreme Court holds. The level of political activity in the Bork hearings and nomination process was unprecedented and large interest group activity emerged. The role of interest groups in the nomination and conformation of Supreme Court judges has grown considerably during the last fifty years since the Bork nomination. Interest groups are aware of the importance and power the Supreme Court holds. These groups will lobby to ensure an individual with similar ideological views is appointed to the court. Interest groups exist on both the conservative and liberal side of politics. This makes appointing an individual with strong liberal or conservative views difficult, because they will receive extreme scrutiny from an interest group with opposing political views. A moderate for either political viewpoint is easier to get appointed to the court. Interest groups lobby directly to the president, and to congress during the nomination and conformation process. They provide key information, and have major influence on the outcome of a

The decisions of justices have "altered behavior of political and governmental officials as well as a man walking down the street"(Miller 4). To understand

For example, in the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought to expand the court and create a majority of Democrats, who, if appointed, would fervently support his New Deal program. Professor Gregory G. Caldeira (Ph.D.), in the Department of Political Science at The Ohio State University, argues in his article, Public Opinion and The U.S. Supreme Court: FDR’s Court-Packing Plan, that in this incident, there was indeed an “intimate connection between the actions of the justices and support for the Supreme Court…during which Franklin D. Roosevelt sought legislation to permit him to pack the high bench with friendly personnel” (Caldeira, 1987, p. 1139). Referring to the Gallup Polls of 1937, which showed that public support for the court substantially decreased in four months, he believes that justices tend to build up their relationship with parties in brief periods before appointment. He sardonically states that this phenomenon has become a “series of well-timed decisions” (Caldeira, 1987, p. 1141). Even though Congress eventually rejected Roosevelt’s “Court Packing” plan, Caldeira’s view demonstrates the drastic influence of the executive branch, and more broadly, party politics, on the high court. This particular case portrays that party politics are continuing to undermine the Constitution

There are oblivious things in life that restrict us, they are called rules. Nobody prefers to play a game by the guidelines, but there are reasons for them to exist. The purpose is to maintain the fairness of the game. And for that reason, we have professionals like, umpires, referees, and justices who help to maintain the integrity of these procedures. Nobody pays to watch the umpire in a ballgame, but they are needed to enforce the rules. Similarly, a justice is needed to aid a nation comply by the rules. Comparably, Chief Justice John Roberts (Roberts) of the United States Supreme Court is an outstanding example of that. In this article, the author explains why Roberts makes decisions the way that he does even though they are considered constraints by many. The decisions made by justices should be unbiased and non- sympathetic to a particular political party or else the political system will suffer.

When you think of the word judicial, justice comes to mind. Justice collates with fairness and logic, but unfortunately some details keep the Judicial branch from being just that. The judicial branch consists of the courts system and the disputing of the law. The head of respective court systems are judges, and these judges are to carry out hearings with constitutional fairness. Ironically, these judges are often not elected into their positions on that same principal of fairness. In Texas, we hold partisan elections to choose our judges. These are general elections where candidates nominated have their respective party labels appear on the ballot. Often times judges are elected off nothing more than party affiliation

     It is nearly impossible to avoid politics during the appointments of high profile positions; therefore, the idea that Supreme Court is above politics when referring to its appointments is giving to much credit to that entity. The appointments of the Supreme Court, as with any political body, correlate no only to the media's portraying, but also to interest group the President wishes to appease.

This scatter plot shows the Justices with their ideology scores. Those closest to the bottom are more conservative, middle is moderate and the top is liberal. To put it into numbers, 0 is the most conservative and 1 is the most liberal. If the theory that Justices only vote by their ideological ideals then one can safely assume that Scalia and Rehnquist will consistently vote conservatively while Brennan and Marshall will consistently vote liberally.

A judge is an interpreter of the law and an arbitrator between the rights of the people in relation to the law. When it comes to the appointment of Supreme Court justices the president and the people look for those who will use the Constitution as a tool to interpret the law. The president looks for a person who fully understands the ins and outs of the law and how it should be applied. The power of judicial review is entrusted in the hands of those that are capable of putting aside their personal beliefs to define the law. When defining the Constitution there

     According to Floyd G. Cullop, The Supreme Court is responsible for “interpreting a federal, state, and local law and deciding whether or not it is constitutional,” making The Supreme Court of the United States perhaps the most powerful branch of the Federal Government. Although the Supreme Court does not make the laws, the justices do review the laws and decide if they are Constitutional. In fact, over the course of a justice’s tenure on The Supreme Court, he or she will have many opportunities to review laws and his or her decisions could affect the lives of many Americans. Furthermore, Supreme Court justices serve life terms, meaning that they hopefully do not have to make