To what extent are members of the Supreme Court partisan?

                In theory at least, members of the Supreme Court are independent of the legislature and the executive. Once appointed, they are free from overt political influence when ruling upon a particular case. However, it could be argued that members of the Supreme Court are partisan figures within the American system of governance. Indeed, it seems appropriate to end this section on the judiciary with a consideration as to what extent members of the Court could be considered partisan. Naturally, a truly independent Court would be free from partisan political influence. Equally, a partisan Court could never be considered genuinely independent of politicians from the two main parties (or the public as a whole).

                The first and most obvious element to consider is that during committee hearings, the ideology or worldview held by each nominee is subject to close examination and scrutiny. During questioning, a conservative/liberal judge may therefore express his/her political leanings when asked about issues such as abortion, affirmative action and gun control. Even a seemingly innocuous question concerning the rights of states against the federal government could well reveal their ideological outlook. Moreover, a number of pressure groups will seek to highlight the political views of a nominee in order to support or oppose their appointment. Although some members of the Supreme Court manage to give vague answers during committee hearings (John Roberts being impressively diplomatic during his!); very few can escape such questioning without some indication of their ideological outlook. Frankly, it would be very difficult indeed to face questions concerning a woman’s right to choose against the right to life without some indication of that nominee’s ideological stance. Even the body language of a nominee could well reveal something about their political leanings.

                Secondly, it is an inescapable truth of political life that a liberal interpretation of the Constitution will often differ from that of a conservative interpretation. When members of the Supreme Court pass judgment on a case, they must surely do so via the lens of either conservatism or liberalism. In this regard at least, we can identify a clear political element to their role. However, these judgments are not Democrat/Republican in a strict adherence to the term partisanship. In other words, a member of the Supreme Court reaches a liberal interpretation as opposed to a Democrat interpretation. Equally, a conservative judge is not strictly speaking offering a Republican interpretation.

                All this might sound like a case of semantics, but there is a very important conclusion to be reached here. Each member of the Court has the scope and the ability to reach a decision based upon their own particular interpretation of the Constitution. Crucially, this interpretation is free from direct political pressure from either of the two parties, or the other two branches of government. That said; they will at times be criticized for caving into political influence. Take the recent case of John Roberts being accused of letting conservatives down by his decision to support Obamacare. Conservatives claimed that the Obama administration had indicated that the Court would lose credibility if it decided to oppose universal health care. However, a decision to oppose the ACA would surely have energized Democrats to go out and vote in the November election. In truth, the Obama administration had no direct influence at all over the decision because the Supreme Court is not a partisan institution. We should always be careful to look beyond partisan interpretations of a ruling taken by the Supreme Court. When liberals praised Roberts as statesmanlike, and conservatives said he was a traitor; such comments say more about the tone of political debate within the states as opposed to any trace of partisanship within the Court itself.

                In terms of how the various members of the Supreme Court may act, there is to some extent an ideological consistency to their interpretation of the Constitution that transcends party politics. In other words, a conservative judge may reach a verdict entirely consistent with the mindset of conservatism as opposed to what the Republican platform might be at that particular time. It must be noted here that the two main parties often adapt their policies and platform to reflect contemporary society and the desire to get elected. In the case of the GOP, the economic policies implemented by the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations are very much to the left of modern-day fiscal conservatives within the Tea Party congressional caucus. Similarly, a liberal judge such as Breyer takes a liberal interpretation rather than reaching a verdict consistent with the stance taken by the Democrats. Ideological consistency thereby trumps partisan consistency. Take the case of Elena Kagan and John Roberts. Kagan worked for the Clinton and Obama administrations, whereas Roberts worked for the Republicans. Despite this, neither Kagan nor Roberts are required to toe the Democrat/Republican line. Whilst Kagan clearly holds liberal views and Roberts usually adopts a conservative stance; they are both free to reach a decision that is contrary to the platform and policies adopted by their previous employers. For instance, Kagan voted to strike down a law that requires each state to expand their Medicaid programs to cover more of those in financial difficulties. It is difficult to think of a decision less in keeping with the Democrat line than this. Equally, Roberts supported the individual mandate clause of the Affordable Care Act. Moreover, the decision was taken during the year of a presidential election in full knowledge that a decision favorable to the ruling Democrat administration would undoubtedly provide a major boost to the Obama campaign.

 

                The dichotomy between liberalism and conservatism inevitably reflects the broader framing of the debate within American politics. It should however be acknowledged that certain cases may invite neither a liberal nor conservative interpretation. Indeed, this may well be the case in several rulings – particularly those of a dry legal character. Alas, those cases that hold major political importance and thereby generate media/public interest are precisely those that do require a liberal or conservative standpoint. In such cases, the decisions reached by members of the Supreme Court will have significant repercussions for society and the political process. Crucially, they are made not on partisan lines but on ideological ones. In that sense at least, the Supreme Court can be considered truly independent of the other two branches of government and of the political parties – just as the founding fathers wanted!