Is The SC Too Political Flashcards
How is the SC too political? - 1
-nomination + confirmation process of justices is highly politicised
How is the nomination process politicised?
-pres nominates justice for life when another dies, retires or is impeached followed by a sentence confirmation
-selection influences by their political ideology as tend to choose nominee whose philosophy’s align with own political views
What is an example of this?
-Trump nominated Gorsuch, Kavanaugh + Barrett as cons justices amounting in Repub dominated SC
-wanted shape court to advance cons values on issues like abortion + gun rights - e.g. overturned Roe v Wade 2022 former SC landmark ruling 1973
What is the argument against this? - 1
-justices are independent and free from political influence once appointed
What does this mean?
-pres ability influence them ends once appointed as cannot be removed for making a judgement that is not aligned with what pres believes
What is an example of this?
-Trump nominees Gorsuch + Kavanaugh judged in Trump v Vance 2020 + Trump v Mazars 2020 that Trump didn’t have absolute right withhold his tax returns + financial record from investigation
What is another argument for the SC being too politicised? - 2
-the court has been criticised for acting as ‘third house of the legislature’ by effectively making rather than interpreting the law
How is this evident?
-has become a ‘quasi-legislative body’
What do strict constructionist argue about this? - with examples
-constitution doesn’t mention abortion or same sex marriage + farmers no intention authorising it when wrote the constitution
-condemn justices involved in Roe v Wade 1973 + Obergefell v Hodges 2016 ‘for legislating from the bench’
What is the counter to this? - 2
-Congress acts as a check on an overly political SC
-could initiate constitutional amendment to overturn courts decisions - prevent legislating from the bench by overturning the decisions/laws made
What is an example of this?
-23rd amendment 1961
-before this US states could only participate in electoral college + as a federal district DC had no voting representation in EC
What did the SC rule in 1963? - 2
-Gray v Sanders reinforced ‘one person, one vote’ ensuring voters had equal representations
-but ruling didn’t apply to DC as no representation in EC
What was the Congressional response? - 2
-granted DC right to vote in pres elections by providing electoral votes
-Congress used authority to override SC interpretation of the constitution and so doesn’t have full power to legislate
How else is the US SC politicised? - 3
-the unelected SC can make important changes to the most controversial areas of public policy
How can the SC do this?
-through judicial review with landmark rulings like Obergefell v Hodges 2015
-court has also intervened in the electoral process
How did the SC intervene in the pres election of 2000 using judicial review?
-2000 election very close it depended on Florida EC votes between W.Bishop + Gore
-Florida SC ordered manual recount in certain counties - decisions Bush appealed to US SC
What did the court rule?
-5-4 in Bush v Gore 2000 that recount was unconstitutional- controversial decision as it decided the general election with Bush as president by 271 to 266 EC votes
-all cons justices voted for Bush + all lib justices voted against
What is a counter to this arg? - 3
-for the constitution to remain relevant the court must apply it to modern areas of public policy even if it’s controversial
Why must the court do this?
-to show the constitution is adaptable to the expansion of rights including abortion in Roe v Wade + ethnic rights e.g. Brown v Board of Education 1954 on racial segregation in schools
