Lesson 6.04 Shifting Balance of the Supreme Court

The justices that preside over the courts are responsible for impartial interpretation of the law to protect "We the People."

In order to feel confident that the law has a high degree of impartiality and equality for all citizens, we must have assurance that judges will not be influenced by people in power.

The law is present in every aspect of American life and there are statues and regulations that apply to virtually everything we do.

The Supreme Court answers the important legal questions that determine how our democracy is operated.

In this lesson you will examine the appointment process, ideology of the justices, and other factors that impact and possibly influence the decisions of the court.

The Constitution gives the President the power to appoint federal judges. When choosing a nominee, the President may consider several factors:

• Legal qualifications including education and experience.
  • Justice Sotomayor, who represents women and the Hispanic population, said, "My personal and professional experiences help me to listen and understand with the law always commanding the result in every case."
• Political party and affiliation. Presidents usually choose a nominee who shares the same party affiliation.
• Judicial ideology or philosophy. Presidents usually nominate judges who share their philosophy.

Presidents must also consider the fact that the Senate must approve their nominees; therefore, they choose someone who is likely to get approval.

Supreme Court Justice nominee John Roberts and President George Bush face the press in 2005.

Legislative Role in the Appointment Process

Federal judges are appointed by the President but must be confirmed by the Senate; therefore, many Presidents consult senators, especially from their party, when making nominations.

The Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearings during which a potential justice of the U.S. Supreme Court is questioned in depth. Senators often attempt to ascertain the ideology, or deeply held beliefs, of the potential justice.

Supreme Court Justice nominee Elana Kagan being questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2010.

Influence of Public Opinion

The Senate Judiciary hearings to approve or deny justices are occasionally televised to inform the American voter about the beliefs of potential justices. In recent years, some confirmation hearings have been intensely emotional and surrounded by media hype. Nominees have endured intense questioning that can go far beyond their judicial ideology or qualifications and can place them at the center of public scrutiny. For example, in 1991, nominee Clarence Thomas suffered a lengthy hearing and media bombardment that focused on allegations of past sexual harassment.

Supreme Court Justice nominee Clarence Thomas at his confirmation hearing in 1991 (Discovery Education).

According to Scotusblog.com, there are several issues that the court may choose to address for the first time in several years. These issues have the potential to be highly publicized and contentious. Some of the issues that may be addressed are various First Amendment concerns as well as issues pertaining to ferderalism and state's rights. Cases that may fall under the latter category include South Carolina v. North Carolina, which will address a question of whether states should be representatives of entities within them or if a private company can attempt to intervene in cases such as land or water disputes.

Read about the current Justices at Supreme Court of the United States.

There are two basic philosophies to describe the ideology of most judges: judicial activism and judicial restraint.

Judicial activism is usually associated with judges allowing personal or political considerations to affect their rulings rather than the law. It stresses a broad interpretation of the Constitution as an evolving document.

Judicial restraint is often referred to as the opposite of judicial activism. It is a theory which suggests that judges should limit exercising their power. It particularly stresses interpreting the Constitution as the Framers originally intended.

One aspect of Judicial ideology is a judges view of and willingness to follow precendents. The Supreme Court, like other courts, adheres to its prior decisions unless there is good reason to depart from them.

When asked about precedent during the nomination process Chief Justice John Roberts said, "Judges are not politicians who can promise to do certain things in exchange for votes. I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability."

Strict vs. Loose Constructionist

The judicial philosophies of activism or restraint are closely associated with judicial interpretation or construction. Judges interpret the Constitution usually in two ways, strict and loose construction.

Strict Constructionists believe in interpreting the Constitution as it is written or limiting judicial interpretation. Strict constructionists are associated with exercising judicial restraint and conservative legal philosophies like originalism and textualism.

Loose Constructionists believe in interpreting the Constitution as a living document that has a dynamic meaning that allows for an evolving interpretation to meet the changes in society.

Learn more information and review what you have learned by watching and reading more about the political balance of the federal court system.

 

Read The Republic Endures and this is the Symbol of its Faith by former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes to learn more about the Court and constitutional interpretation.

Watch Independent Judiciary (3:36) to hear from judges about making independent and impartial decisions.