Part of The Student Room Group

  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

'9 politicians sitting on a bench.' Critically evaluate this description of the US Supreme Court

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

?Nine politicians sitting on a bench.? Critically evaluate this description of the US Supreme Court. The decisions of the US Supreme Court can have a significant impact on US society. In fact the Supreme Court only hears cases that it believes are of major constitutional significance. The impact that these decisions have on US society is almost always a divisive issue, and this has led to many people claiming that Supreme Court justices are as much politicians as they are judges. This essay will critically evaluate the view that the US Supreme Court is made up on nine politicians, rather than 9 judges. Appointment process One reason for the view that Supreme Court Justices are ?politicians? is due to the appointment process, which has been accused of being politicised. This is because nominees for the Supreme Court are often nominated and questioned based more on politics than on their skills as a judge, which is in contrast to the UK where Supreme Court judges must have been judges in the Court of Appeal, and are selected solely on merit, rather than politics[1]. In the US, the president nominates a candidate, which is more often than not based on politics rather than on merit, and then the Senate votes on whether to approve the nominee. ...read more.

Middle

Judicial philosophy The main reason that the 9 Supreme Court justices are described as 9 politicians is because each justice has their own political philosophy which can greatly alter how they decide a case. For example, ?the right to bear arms? could mean that US citizens have the right to own any gun they like, without any restrictions to how they get that gun, or it could mean that US citizens have the right to own one handgun, but must have a licence. This is just 2 ways it could be interpreted, and the Supreme Court has the power to decide what the constitution means. There are 2 philosophies which a judge can hold to varying degrees; strict constructionism and loose constructionism, or judicial restraint and judicial activism. Strict constructionists interpret the constitution in a literal way, trying to fulfil the original intent of the founding fathers. Loose constructionists interpret the constitution in a liberal fashion, being more prepared to move away from the literal interpretation[6]. Judicially activist judges hold the view that judges should use their position to promote desirable social ends, whilst judicially restrained judges believe that any changes to society such as laws in gun control, abortion or the death penalty should be left to the politically accountable legislative and executive branches[7]. ...read more.

Conclusion

This shows that the justices will still act like politicians, even in a restrained court such as the Roberts Court. Judicial body Whilst the court undoubtedly has made decisions which could be described as political, they were created by the founding fathers to check the powers of both Congress and the presidency, and in fulfilling this role, it may mean that they have to make political decisions. They are not politicians which have been elected to make decisions, they are there to interpret the constitution as they see it. If that means that they make decisions which have huge implications for US society as Brown v Board of Education for Topeka or Roe v Wade did, then so be it. Conclusion In conclusion, I don?t think that the description ?nine politicians sitting on a bench? is a fair or accurate one of the Supreme Court. The decisions that the court makes are indeed political, but their job is to interpret the constitution, and they do this as they think the constitution should be interpreted. The court is like a quasi-legislative body, but they act as they believe is right in accordance with the constitution, as they are unaccountable, and therefore do not need to worry about the politics that comes with their decision. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level United States section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

or


Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level United States essays

  1. Peer reviewed

    Are supreme court justices politicians in disguise?

    4 star(s)

    The founding fathers were well aware of this and it would seem that Alexander Hamilton at least knew that this would have to be the role of the Supreme Court. They left it out of the constitution because it is controversial (with the judiciary overruling democratically made law).

  2. Federalism essay

    The Basic Law has determined the law-making powers of the states and the federal government. They have been grouped into three categories: exclusive, concurrent and framework legislation. The Federation may only legislate in such cases that it is necessary to have a uniform law for the whole country.

  1. Using examples, explain the limitations on the Supreme Courts powers.How do Presidents veto legislation, ...

    In 1954 the Court announced in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka that states should desegregate their schools 'with all deliberate speed', several years later the Court complained that desegregation was subject to 'too much deliberation and not enough speed.' The Court can amend- even overturn- decisions made by earlier Courts. For example, the 1954 Brown v.

  2. Overpaid and Underworked: Plight of the Canadian Senate

    three Maritimes provinces together shared the exact number of representatives as Quebec or Ontario7. The fact that two provinces were identified as regions already contributes to the bizarre and rather ambiguous nature in which Canadian Senate is comprised. Today, it isn't the Maritime Provinces that are up in arms about

  1. An 18th Century Strait-jacket - Is this a fair description of the Constitution?

    or tyranny of the masses (largest political party). The arguments of critics, however, are that these influences, relevant as they were in the 18th Century, are now 'neither here nor there', and in fact, it would be wise to allow either the Executive (in effect the President)

  2. To what extent is ‘ imperial presidency’ an accurate description of the US president?

    However, despite this being an obvious area for the abuse of power, many consider it necessary in order for the country to react swiftly to a situation; an argument made stronger when we consider the possible time a Bill takes to be passed.

  1. Assess the view that the US Constitution often ensures limited government

    In 1997, the Supreme Court declared the Communications Decency Act unconstitutional, following the case of Reno v American Civil Liberties Union. In Clinton v New York City (1998), it declared the Line Item Veto Act unconstitutional. The judiciary can also declare actions of any member of the executive branch to be unconstitutional.

  2. Critically analyse the appointment and confirmation process for nominees in the US Supreme Court

    Not only, if successful, will it determine the philosophy of the highest court of appeal, but it may ultimately change the nature of judicial review. Furthermore because of a Supreme Court Justice having life tenure once in office, this will mean that judges will remain on the bench outliving the president that appointed them.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work