Separating the Law from Politics
Unlike the President, or Congressmen, the Supreme Court is meant to remain a non-political entity. For this reason, each court member must represent an independent and a-political view, thus, all decisions stemming from the court ought to be born out of the Constitution. In theory, Constitutionalism within the court then, could be defined as the “the practice of ensuring that the spirit of the Constitution is the deciding factor in all court cases brought before SCOTUS”. (Pettit 2011) Shapiro explained that the court must create policy without violating neutrality, “not in terms of philosophic, jurisprudential, or historical correctness of the concept of neutral principles.” (Shapiro 1964) It is understood …show more content…
(Pettit 2011) This assumption by the American people is rightfully so, as history provides a plethora of evidence that politics remain at the forefront of many important SCOTUS decisions. In many instances, constitutional adjudication has morphed into politics disguised as lawful rulings. The New York Times claims that justices are significantly more likely to support a plaintiff, if their appeal matches the courts current political viewpoint. This is a visible issue when looking through the cases of Justice Scalia who voted to support free speech rights of conservative speakers three times more often in comparison to their liberal counterparts. In fact, over the course of 43 years, from 1986 to 2011, Scalia voted on conservative cases over 65% of the times. (Liptak 2014) Court rulings are insistently politically charged, in a system that intended for rulings to be neutral and bound to the …show more content…
This is fundamentally important because studies have suggested that there is a direct correlation with the amount of time an individual serves as a justice, and how their ruling more away from a responsibility towards the constitution, and align with their personal agendas. This is problematic, as the average term continues to rise to 26.1 years. Carrington explained that the “The Founders could not foresee that increases in longevity would imperil the rotation in powerful office essential to representative government". Likewise, the founders of the constitution did not anticipate that current day SCOTUS members would gain near celebrity status. However, modern medicine has brought about modern judges, who seem very fond of their power. For example, William Douglas set a record, serving as a Supreme Court justice for 36 years. (Carrington 2006) He remained highly resistant to leaving his position, until he suffered from a stroke in 1975, and was forced to retire. It has become such a frequent occurrence, SCOTUS members will attempt to hold onto their position for as long as possible. Regrettably, the constitution lacks that guidelines necessary to set limitations for the members, aside from stating that the individual must be “in good