Judicial independence

                Judicial independence is of crucial importance within any democratic society. The judicial branch of government needs to be autonomous of both the legislature and the executive in order to perform its proper role. In other words, members of the Supreme Court must be free from any form of political interference. According to the principle of judicial independence, the Supreme Court must be able to pass rulings based solely upon their interpretation of the Constitution (and existing law). They should never be coerced into accepting a Republican/Democrat stance. Secondly, it should be possible for members of the Supreme Court to pass rulings that contradict their supposed ideological bias. When the Head of State nominates a member to the SCOTUS, he works on the assumption that a judge can be classed as either conservative (in the case of a Republican President) or liberal (in the case of a Democrat). However, once appointed to the Supreme Court each member is free to chart their own ideological course regardless of what they might have been expected to do.

The Roberts Court currently holds a slender conservative majority. As such, one might expect most decisions taken by the Supreme Court since 2005 to assuage conservatives. Notable examples include DC v. Heller (2008) and Citizens United v. FEC (2010). Heller was an undoubted victory for those who interpret the second amendment as an individual’s right to own a gun, whereas the Citizens United verdict matched the interests of conservative groups because they tend to receive relatively more campaign finance from wealthy corporations. The Roberts Court also struck down a component of civil rights legislation which was originally designed to prevent southern states from discriminating against ethnic minorities. The Voting Rights Act (1965) was ruled to be “unconstitutional in light of current conditions” (notably Section 5 which applied to those localities that practiced discriminatory methods). As a result of the ruling, it is Congress that can now rewrite the law. Not surprisingly, Obama expressed disappointment with the ruling. However, liberals have also been pleased with some of the judgments reached by the Roberts Court despite the fact that most of its members were appointed by Republicans. For instance, the SCOTUS ruled that the mandatory clause of the Affordable Care Act was constitutional. This provided a major fillip to Obama’s re-election campaign in 2012. More recently, the case of US v. Windsor (2013) marks a triumph for those in favor of gay marriage. Quite frankly, the Supreme Court can often act in an unexpected manner free from political pressure and reach a decision based purely upon their legalistic interpretation.

                In terms of acting in a manner distinct to their assumed ideological perspective, the clearest illustration on the bench at the present time is Anthony Kennedy. Nominated by a Republican, Kennedy is conventionally defined as a moderate. Another example one might consider is the Chief Justice himself. Although he is unmistakably conservative on many issues, John Roberts sided with the liberal bloc over the 2012 ruling on Obamacare despite being nominated by a Republican (George W. Bush) and confirmed by a Republican-controlled upper chamber. In siding with Obama in election year; the ever-quotable Sarah Palin described him as a “traitor.”