The fact that the president can appoint a judge to the Supreme Court may imply that they then owe allegiance to the executive branch or suggest that the president is assigning those who are loyal to the Court. This is not usually the case because the Justices must be approved by a simple majority in the Senate and once one is elected then they hold the position for life. This ensures in theory that the Judges owe nothing to anyone and gain their position through been a worthy candidate. However one may argue that a Senate or Presidency that is appointing an individual will try to approve those who are of a similar political persuasion, which can often be the case. The Senate is by and large never run by a large majority, therefore making it difficult for one party to push nominees through without too much trouble and it can be very difficult for a president to put forward a candidate who is radical or one that might upset the balance in the Supreme Court. Although this is a reason why some could consider the Court not independent enough from the other branches of government, it is not as big of a factor as one may think. Especially as there is nothing the Executive or Congress can directly do to influence a Court’s decision or remove a judge (providing they keep within the law). It is also fair too assume that even though some Justices may be branded with a particular political persuasion, they still represent a large amount of the populations views and this implies that their believes are not really relevant in the independence of the Supreme Court and therefore whether or not they are partisan.
There are many examples of cases where the Supreme Court has had to make difficult mainstream verdicts, even though the Court prefers to keep out of political debates, sometimes it is necessary. The reason for the unwillingness is because they do not want to disrupt their authority, which lays in the public’s willingness to accept the Court’s decisions. This can be seen as a problem because the Supreme Court therefore cannot make some unpopular, but necessary choices without fear of loosing their legitimacy. However, political cases do not occur very often, an extreme example of when the Supreme Court was required to effectively choose the next president was in 2000 when there was an appeal after Florida’s Supreme Court had ruled in favour of Al Gore, suggesting that there should be a recount in that state. The Supreme Court overturned the verdict on the basis that there was not enough time until the president was required to be inaugurated by the constitution. This in effect secured the presidency for George W. Bush. The Justices of the Supreme Court unsurprisingly voted in line with their political persuasions and at four votes dissenting to the five in favour it was as close one could possibly get without failing to produce a result. This not only shows that the Court can perform as a last defence against melt-down, but shows that people were willing to accept the decision as final even though quite understandably a lot of democratically inclined people were not too pleased. But does outline the fact that it is very difficult for members of the Court to remain politically uninvolved in these situations, however rare they may be. The Supreme Court was not best please about having to take on this burden because they thought it was beyond their jurisdiction and compromising their authority.
The President has a certain amount of ‘political weight’ to throw behind a case to potentially influence the outcome or enforce it. This can be seen in the Brown v. The Board of Education in 1954, when President Eisenhower used his commander-in-chief powers to support the Courts decision and in 1989 when George Bush expressed his public outrage at the Supreme Court’s decision on flag desecration. This may have not have much of an effect regarding the outcome of the Courts decision, but may have helped to tarnish their reputation and make them less willing to make such resolutions in the future. Independence works both ways and even though President Eisenhower supported the Court’s decision it still shows that they lack the independence to carry out and enforce popular decisions self-sufficiently.
In 1974 the Court was presented with a case that involved the incrimination of President Nixon. Again they were reluctant to accept a politically inclined case, but it was heard. The case involved the President refusing to hand over tape recordings incriminating and connecting him to the Watergate Affair. The Court ruled that the President was not protected by a so called ‘executive privilege’ and that his administration should hand over the tapes for evidence. This shows that the Supreme Court was sufficiently equipped to rule against the Executive branch, implying that they are indeed independent enough to uphold the virtues of Civil Liberties without confronting too many problems.
Overall the Supreme Court has a number of mixed blessings. Firstly they are appointed due to the support from the presidency and the Senate, which must count for something, even if it may just be that they are chosen according to their political beliefs. This does not mean that they will be loyal to either bodies, but simply entails that their political persuasions will always be relevant and even if they are not been influenced by a political group or party directly; it can be counted on that the Justices will tend to vote in the same manner more often than not. The Supreme Court does not have a means to uphold their rulings and must rely in the population to abide by the decisions out of good will. This can be seen as a problem because the Court may then be afraid to do something unpopular for fear of loosing their authority, but then again whether they make a liberal or conservative judgment it will still receive support and usually general acceptance for the good of the system. This also means that the Court is still independent, because even if the population did and sometimes does influence the outcome of a verdict it is still acting in the majorities favour and therefore sufficiently upholding the Civil Liberties of one or more people. The fact that the Court has ruled against federal and state laws on many occasions also shows that they are not afraid to stand up for the Civilian population against other structures of government. The Court is certainly a force to be reckoned with and critics complain that America is ‘governed by the Judiciary’. This may have valued points but if the Court was less powerful of influential it would not be sufficiently equipped to uphold the rights and Civil Liberties of the public.
