Justice System and Constitution in USA MORE Political than Judicial

 

The Supreme Court Has Never Been "politically neutral"

 Over the last 25 years PLUS, the court has become just another partisan institution. 

The Supreme Court was to devolve into just one more political institution, in an age of extreme partisanship and polarization, the fear goes, that the guardrails supporting our Constitutional system would fall away.

Andrew Jackson was open about defying the Supreme Court and firmly executed his Executive Power with the Indian Removal Act in 1830.

The Supreme Court has not just been divided along the ideological lines that always existed, but divided along partisan lines, with every justice appointed by a Democrat voting more liberally than every justice appointed by a Republican. That is far from the historical norm.

Supreme Court and Partisanship: The Supreme Court is increasingly seen as a political institution amid extreme partisanship and polarization, potentially undermining the Constitutional system.

Historical Defiance: Andrew Jackson openly defied the Supreme Court by using executive power to enforce the Indian Removal Act in 1830, exemplifying the dominance of executive authority over judicial rulings.

Perception of Partisanship: There is a growing sense that law is becoming synonymous with partisan politics, with the Supreme Court's recent decisions reflecting political motivations.

Roe v. Wade: Campaigns to appoint justices to overturn Roe v. Wade, which were successful, highlight the political nature of judicial appointments.

Partisan Division: The Court is now divided along partisan lines, with justices appointed by Democrats voting more liberally than those appointed by Republicans, which deviates from historical norms.

Historical Enforcement: The Brown v. Board of Education case demonstrated the need for executive action and societal acceptance to enforce Supreme Court rulings, with President Eisenhower intervening to enforce desegregation.

Public Confidence Decline: Polling data shows a significant decline in public approval of the Supreme Court, with many Americans viewing it as politically motivated rather than impartial.

Historical Political Engagement: Justices in the past, such as John Jay, John Marshall, and others, were actively involved in political affairs and maintained political ambitions.

Abe Fortas Example: Justice Abe Fortas maintained close political ties with President Lyndon B. Johnson, which led to ethical concerns and his eventual resignation, prompting changes in Supreme Court conduct.

The Supreme Court has increasingly become viewed as a political institution amidst today's extreme partisanship and polarization. There is a fear that this could undermine the guardrails supporting the Constitutional system. Historically, figures like Andrew Jackson openly defied the Court, showing that executive power often triumphs over judicial rulings.

Concerns are rising that the law is now perceived as partisan politics. Although some argue that the Court is more committed to law over politics than before, others see its decisions as politically motivated, especially with campaigns influencing judicial appointments, such as the case of Roe v. Wade.

The Court's division now reflects partisan lines, a significant departure from the past when ideological differences were less pronounced. Historical cases like Brown v. Board of Education show that effective Supreme Court rulings often require executive support and societal acceptance.

Public confidence in the Supreme Court has declined, with many Americans viewing it as politically driven rather than impartial. This perception is fueled by events like the text message exposure between Virginia Thomas and Mark Meadows.

The Supreme Court has never been completely apolitical. Early justices engaged in political activities, and throughout history, many justices maintained political ties and ambitions. Notable figures like Earl Warren, Hugo Black, and Abe Fortas exemplified the close relationship between the judiciary and politics.

Fortas' tenure highlighted the ethical dilemmas of such relationships, leading to his resignation and subsequent changes in Court conduct, including greater transparency and a reduction in direct political advising by justices.

This historical context reveals the complex interplay between judicial decisions, executive authority, and societal attitudes, challenging the notion of an entirely neutral and apolitical Supreme Court.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/04/03/the-supreme-court-has-never-been-apolitical-00022482