Judicial neutrality

                Along with judicial independence, another key concept to consider is that of judicial neutrality. In simple terms, this might be described as the situation in which members of the judicial branch put aside their own personal and political beliefs when performing their job. Judicial neutrality thereby ensures that the judicial branch of government does not abuse its power. Members are therefore limited to mere interpretation of the Constitution.

                In order to ensure judicial neutrality is maintained, a judge cannot campaign on behalf of a political cause. Although they may be labeled conservative or liberal in regards to judgments reached; they are largely absent from the public domain. Secondly, they must always offer a legal (rather than political) explanation for their decision. Reports are routinely published explaining how they arrive at a particular decision (both on a majority and minority stance). No member of the Supreme Court can simply reach a judgment on an arbitrary and opinionated stance. However, the main element of judicial neutrality is to ensure personal opinions do not get in the way of performing their job effectively. In other words, conservative members of the Supreme Court could not overturn Roe v. Wade (1973) unless it was justified on the basis of existing law or constitutional interpretation. The personal opinions of the judge must be secondary to interpretation of the law as it stands.

                As one might expect, there are those who claim that members of the Supreme Court fall a little short of this particular goal. For instance, it must be noted that members are routinely categorized in terms of their ideological persuasion. This would seem to imply that they are not entirely neutral in their rulings. Secondly, one might reasonably claim that no-one is entirely free from personal bias. Conservatives have on occasion claimed that members of the judiciary adopt a liberal mindset contrary to the common-sense values of ordinary Americans. Liberals also highlight the elitist background of some members of the Supreme Court, implying that this might make it difficult for them to show sufficient empathy with those marginalized within society. It should also be noted that Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas attended a strategy session at the Koch Brothers retreat before ruling on the Citizens United case. Not surprisingly, this could be seen in a very negative light.