Introduction
SCOTUS is viewed as a stone wall of fairness without giving in to political badgering, but it often influences the community of lawyers before the Court. Nonetheless, this interpretation must recognize the massive interconnectedness between jurisprudence and politics in the most senior judicial body. In this research paper, we will explore the political nature of the Supreme Court, showing the public that the Court is made up of field actors, not just judges.
Definition of “Political”
Lasswell pointed out the meaning of “political” thus: “Who gets what, when, and how.” This meaningful, concise definition sums up the entire essence of politics by drawing attention to the spheres of power, resource allocation, and the ultimate distribution of outcomes within a society. It promotes the flexibility of politics, as saturation of processes is aired. Here, the politics of allocating goods, services, and opportunities among individuals and groups are emphasized. The essence of Lasswell’s definition lies in the diverse and often complex situations resulting from numerous interactions that exclusively dictate the nature and state of political behavior.
Evidence of Political Nature
Historical Precedents
An in-depth determination of the historical examples that depict the political nature of the Supreme Court warrants considering the Court’s rulings, which reflect predominant societal ideas and policy orientation. The Court ruled that the black Americans, either free or enslaved, were not the citizens of the United States (Karichashvili 117). This action, however, which was a reflection of pro-slavery sentiment dominating the era, revealed to the broader public how the interpretation of the Constitution by the Court was interfered with by the issue concerning slavery.
It could also be manipulated using political relationships. In addition, the decision precipitated a rise in mutual suspicion between the North and South, which was a factor in initiating the Civil War.
Conversely, the “separate but equal” doctrine upholds racial separation. Strikingly, this verdict reflects the bigoted views of the 19th century, which was when the case was decided (Bishop 358). The ruling contravenes the precise meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause. By resorting to the societal norms and the political pressures in support of its decision, in effect, the Court upheld racial discrimination and segregation and, consequently, the systemic inequalities, and this only became a long-standing phenomenon.
Moreover, in another critical case, Kimura v. U.S. (1944), some judges saw the Court exposed to political pressures. In this instance, the Court supported the internment during World War II of the Japanese-American ethnic, primarily due to concerns of national security (Webster 161). Even though there was such an evident disregard for civil rights, the Court’s willingness to consider the executive power high above the constitutional limits unhidden the fact that the Court itself most favored political expediency to constitutional rights. The impact of this decision manifested itself even more; the debate that came out of it centered on the balance of defense and freedom, which should be a priority in war times.
Landmark Cases
The most already known cases, like Roe v. Wade (1973) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), decide societal matters that usually make people hurt and offend others. By the rule of the Constitution and the 9th Amendment in Roe v. Wade, the independence of a woman to choose abortions was the very core of the women’s rights movement, oblique towards accepted custom laws of gender roles and reproductive powers (Robson 837). The Court denied the petition, siding with the evolving thinking of society on women’s rights and bodily autonomy. The Court affirmed the status quo and catalyzed social change on this critical issue.
Furthermore, Obergefell v. Hodges can be described as another turning point in the movement of LGBTQ+ rights in which the Court declared that the nationwide recognition of marriage equality is a civil right (Robson 837). This choice, which resulted from growing public acceptance and particular legal breakthroughs, signified the wider social recognition of such rights and relationships and humanity’s victory. Through its rulings, the Court upheld the fundamental principle that all are one and equal regardless of their sexual orientation and thereby participated in ending ingrained prejudices that exist against LGBTQ+.
The Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) highlighted the role of the judiciary in political processes and made the contribution of the judicial power to the political scene apparent. For this reason, the Court ruled that the limits on the amounts of money that businesses can donate to political campaigns discriminate against corporate speech, which is protected from government interference under the First Amendment (Robson 837). The decision, taking into account libertarian principles and free networking, ended up with a thousand dollars placed in campaign finances, and it turned the election process to an advantage for the rich. The impact of the hereafter election specifically equated to inflation in politics with challenges of how money should be spent in the elections and the companies to rule democracy.
Internal Dynamics and Decision-Making Process
The actual operations of the Supreme Court itself, concerning its internal dynamics, such as the justices’ ideologies, backgrounds, and interactions among them, heavily impact its decision-making process. Beyond professional qualifications, each Justice makes his or her political preferences and judicial world views a part of the Court. Through these components, Justice develops its understanding of the law and stance in individual cases. Precisely, one of the ideological gaps between conservative and liberal judges that nearly always result in controversial case verdicts are the social cases that cover a wide range of topics like abortion, affirmative action, and LGBTQ rights (Robson 837).
Furthermore, not only is the system of choosing review cases, known as certiorari, itself political but the principle of stare decisis itself is not necessarily grounded in the law. The Court admitted that to decide upon the cases that should heard not only by legal factors but also by strategic and political matters. Justices may pick the cases that bring to Justice the issues for which they have zealous feelings or the public policy questions of national importance that affect the whole nation.
Public Opinion and Judicial Legitimacy
The public trust in the Court and its decisions is finally established based upon careful examination of the measures it takes, which are, in fact, the cornerstones of its legitimacy and authority. Being an unappointed body, the Court bases its reputation primarily on its record of being fair and neutral in ensuring the rule of law that is taken for granted by the public. However, the court practice allows the public to form an opinion and influence its reaction directly or indirectly to the social and political movements of various whereabouts.
To illustrate this, for example, the Court’s landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), meant to outlaw racial discrimination in public schools, actually bears influences of the broad social changes and the growing civil rights movement (Bond 1671). The Court’s eagerness to redress racial injustice, among other issues, was not spared from legal principles and socialized judgments that the landscape was shifting politically and morally. In addition, the Controlling opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which made this ruling valid all over the United States, was just another indication of the need for equality and was motivated by the fact that people in the U.S. had started to embrace the idea of same-gender marriage (Yoshino 147). The extension of the cause of the Court in promoting social advancement and safeguarding civil freedoms reinforces its reputability and maintains the position of the Court as the political organ of society.
Checks and Balances
Although the Supreme Court has the ultimate power, the judiciary must be a free and independent body. It is not isolated from other internal and external factors. Congress can impeach and dismiss Federal judges and Supreme Court justices on grounds that include misconduct or abuse of the office. Similarly, the President is an essential element of the Court’s design through nominations and governors, which are confirmed by the Senate (Epps 1).
The Court’s verdicts may well be put for interpretation and executed by superior authorities. Judicial review, which grants the power of veto to deny enactment of unconstitutional legislative and executive productions, acts as a check on the authority of the executive and legislative branches, respectively. While it is so the Judgment – review of the Judge’s judges revising role – the very same role is subject to scrutiny and debate, in the end, confirmation of the intricate relationship between law and politics.
Impact on Policy and Society
Apart from this, the Supreme Court verdicts usually translate into community and country-wide norms, which may align with or, at times, oppose its views on a given policy. The relatively wide range of the issues covered by the Court decisions, ranging from civil rights and civil liberties to healthcare, immigration, and environmental regulation, to name just a few, affects the lives of numerous Americans (Karichashvili 117). Besides, from a vantage point of the Court’s interpretations of the Constitution and federal laws, legal norms are set up as a pattern that guides future decisions and the evolution of American law.
Take Roe v. Wade (1973) as an example when the judges protect abortion as women’s right to life; for this decision, the abolition of life is still one of the unavoidable questions when people talk about women’s autonomy. Similarly, the Court’s recent verdicts related to voting rights, campaign finance, and gerrymandering are of enormous importance in the operations of American democracy and the extent of the integrity of the electoral process.
Conclusion:
Ultimately, the Supreme Court is not political isolation but a special friend of the political arena. The Court will uncover historical precedents, rules of landmark cases, and patterns of engagement with other branches of government to see and interpret politics partially as part of the nature of the Court. The knowledge that this is the state of affairs is the first step many people took before forming a deeper understanding of the influence and the responsibility of the Supreme Court of the USA on American society.
Works Cited
Bishop, David W. “Plessy v. Ferguson: A reinterpretation.” The Progressive Era in the USA: 1890–1921. Routledge, 2017. 353–361.
Bond, Julian. “With all deliberate speed: Brown v. Board of Education.” Ind. L.J. 90 2015: 1671.
Epps, Daniel. “Checks and Balances in the Criminal Law.” Vand. L. Rev. 74 2021: 1.
Karichashvili, Irakli. “The Dred Scott Case.” Legal Methods (2018): 117.
Lasswell, Harold D. The analysis of political behavior. Routledge, 2013.
Robson, Ruthann. “Justice ginsburg’s obergefell v. hodges.” UMKC L. Rev. 84 (2015): 837.
Webster, Timothy. “Discursive justice: interpreting World War II litigation in Japan.” Va. J. Int’l L. 58 2018: 161.
Yoshino, Kenji. “A new birth of freedom?: Obergefell v. Hodges.” Harv. L. Rev. 129 2015: 147.
write