Supreme Court Justices = Political Pariahs?

In our democratic society, the Supreme Court holds a special place in the government as the defender of freedom and general lawful goodness, and we, the people, like to think of them as “political monks” devoid of any party alliances. However, because Presidents appoint the judges, it is necessary to remember that they are indeed people, and more importantly, people with opinions.

In the past, Supreme Court Justices were politicians themselves, as seen in the example of President Taft’s ability to be the 27th President of the United States and then becoming the tenth Supreme Court Justice. All of this changed with Richard Nixon’s belief that the President should appoint Justices based on merit rather than solely political reputation. The current route to becoming a Supreme Court Justice generally follows the following steps, (remember Justices are appointed for life):

- There is an opening in the Supreme Court (resignation or death of another Justice)
- The president nominates a Judge he believes to be worthy for the position, typically discussing his choice with other prominent Congress people
- The nomination is then sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which collects information about the nominee. This information includes background checks as well as a review of his or her rulings and written legal opinions/reviews
- The Judiciary Committee then holds a hearing on the nominee to interview him or her, while also allowing witnesses to speak in favor or against the nomination
- Then the Judiciary Committee votes on the nomination and makes its recommendation to the entire Senate in favor/against/inconclusive about the recommendation of what to do with the nomination
- The Senate debates the nomination and a 3/5-majority vote is necessary to end the debate (called the cloture vote). This vote can also be filibustered for delay.
- After the debate officially ends, the Senate votes on the nomination, the confirmation of which requires a majority of the senators’ votes.
- The Judge is then (hopefully in the eyes of the President) the newest addition to the Supreme Court.

It is important to note that although the President has the power to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, the end vote is still in the hands of the Senate. This of course, may alter the President’s choice because typically the Senate would vote along party lines (Republicans favoring a conservative judge and Democrats favoring a more liberal or moderate one), and it is unusual for a President to serve his term during his party’s majority sitting in the Senate. For this reason, dissent from the Senate can be problematic for the President as was seen during Clinton’s series of unsuccessful attempts to pass his nominations throughout both his terms against the Republican controlled Judiciary Committee—24 of his nominations from various federate appellate judgeships were not approved.

On paper, this process may seem slightly obnoxious as though all the power is vested within the Senate who is probably the opposing party of the President. However, although this process seems tedious and too political, it shows the legislative check on the executive, which in theory, works to protect our government’s function. Without Senate intervention, the President would be able to appoint whomever he thought would execute his interpretations of the law, thereby manipulating the government to work solely in his favor and skewing the power of the branches of government. Even so, it seems strange that while the people get to vote for who holds positions in the other two branches, when it comes to the judiciary they are completely left out of the equation—you’d think that when it comes to things that people should have an opinion on, voting for those who set the guidelines for laws that directly affect people’s lives would be at the top of the list, but apparently that is not the case. Even so, this method of choosing judges seems more legitimate than passing around the same politicians from branch to branch, because at least this way legal professionals will be ensured to serve the position, not someone who is basing decisions off of personal political-infused ideology.

This isn’t to say that the justices actually are political pariahs, because they are not. In fact, the Supreme Court typically votes along party lines and ideologies—conservative judges usually support Republicans and more liberal judges support Democrats. For example, in 2006, the Supreme Court was split along party lines over Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency which debated whether the EPA had authority to “regulate motor vehicle emissions of carbon dioxide” under the Clean Air Act and by extension, would direct if the government had any responsibility to lessen global warming. The Court held that greenhouse gasses are pollutants and the EPA may regulate their emission. The judges who were supporting this decision and voting along Democratic party lines were Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. The dissent (and alignment with the Republicans) came from Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito. This shows that the cases presented do not necessarily need to be completely controversial like Wade v. Roe to cause Justices to vote along party lines, thereby proving that judges’ personal political leanings do come into play, even if not often.