July 9, 2024
In the recently ended term of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court rendered some decisions that have a lot of people upset. They believe that their political/ideological perspective should be the way of life for all. And when the Court’s rulings do not follow that line of thinking, the Court has made a terrible and unforgiveable mistake.
The reaction of some of these people is that one or more of the justices should be impeached, and/or the Court must be packed with additional justices who hold political/ideological beliefs that align with theirs, and will rule accordingly, resulting in politically satisfying decisions.
This position is far removed from the original intent and purpose of the Court. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law. Its job is to ensure the promise of equal justice under the law and it also functions as guardian and interpreter of the U.S. Constitution.
Here is information from Justia online regarding the function of the Supreme Court: “Article III of the U.S. Constitution outlines the scope of judicial power. Under Section 2, the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts may hear cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties made under their authority, among other matters.
“With a few exceptions, the Supreme Court is limited to appellate jurisdiction, reviewing cases previously heard by other courts. Federal courts may hear only actual, ongoing cases or controversies, which means that someone bringing a claim must have ‘standing’ to sue. In general, they must have suffered a concrete injury for which a court can provide an effective remedy.
“One of the most important and frequently exercised powers of federal courts does not appear in the text of Article III. This is the power of judicial review. Barely a decade into its history, the Supreme Court asserted in Marbury v. Madison that it holds the power to determine whether a legislative or executive action is constitutional. Many of the most famous Supreme Court decisions have relied implicitly on the notion that the Court is the ultimate interpreter of the founding document.
“On the other hand, the Court has developed a doctrine of judicial restraint in the area of ‘political questions.’ The six factors outlined in Baker v. Carr largely define this doctrine, which is based on the idea that courts should remain aloof from politics. Thus, a federal court should decline to hear a case that presents an issue heavily laden with political implications.”
Now, those who disagree with the Court’s recent decision on presidential immunity, and other similarly unpopular decisions, will claim that the immunity issue is rife with political implications. But the important factor is that the decision protects the actions of presidents of any and all political persuasions, not one in particular. These days, nearly everything has political implications, but that was not the issue of the immunity decision. It was a question of Constitutional intent regarding the actions of presidents while in office.
The judicial branch, of which the U.S. Supreme Court is a part, is the only one of the three branches of our government in which no one is elected. The president and vice president in the executive branch are elected, and the members of the two houses of the Congress are elected in the legislative branch.
Those seeking one of those positions run for president/vice president, the Senate or the House of Representatives on a platform of things they support and oppose. But future federal judges and justices do not campaign for, or run for a seat on a court, let alone have a platform of things they support and oppose that they will exercise if selected for a seat. Judges and justices are expected to be politically and ideologically neutral. The law is supposed to be applied without prejudice or preference.
Those chosen for a seat in a federal court are there not to please Republicans, Democrats, or any group. They are there to interpret the Constitution and laws of the nation as they were written and intended to be understood without political bias or interest.
Imagine if the Democrats were somehow able to gain total control of the government. How would the non-Democrats feel about their country, if they were forced to live under the dictates of the Democrats, many of whose rules they would strongly dislike, and which might have serious negative effects on them?
And then, what if in a few years the Republicans somehow managed to take control, and force their ideas on the country. How would the non-Republicans like that?
That is the reason the federal court system, and indeed, all of our courts, must be politically neutral and maintain America’s pledge and history of being the one place on the planet that guarantees its people fairness and the greatest amount of personal freedom in the history of mankind.
And each of us must take a deep breath whenever the Supreme Court, or any court, makes a ruling with which we disagree, and move on. And if a change is desired, we must make those changes through the proper processes, and not through brute force.
