Politics: The Ideal Justice

Machiavelli wrote, “There is nothing more difficult to take in hand or more perilous to conduct…than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.”

Because of its decisions, the United States Supreme Court creates this “new order of things” daily. Whether these judgments are publicly insignificant, as, disturbing the affluence of a corporation, or historically irreplaceable, such as limiting or expanding civil liberties, the Supreme Court intrinsically affects. So with the magnitude of the Supreme Courts’ decisions in full scope, the fundamental question is, how should Supreme Court Justices come to such significant decisions? Or more specifically, should Supreme Court Justices be affected by the winds of individual ideology and/or public opinion?

Firstly, temporary public opinion and long-term public opinion should be distinguished before any further argument ensues. Is there not some inherent difference between President Bush’s approval rating and opinions concerning racial equality? One, President Bush’s approval rating, consistently changes with current events, while the other, cultural changes like demanding racial equality (civil rights movement), occur only a few times in a given century. Therefore, long-term public opinion can be illustrated by a slow progression of changing ideology with no change resulting from current events, while temporary public opinion can be illustrated by almost impulsive reactions with direct correlations to current events.

Throughout history, the Supreme Court has of course taken into consideration long-term public opinion when making its decisions. For example, arguably, the 1950s, 60s, and 70s authored the most influential changes in American ideology of the 20th century. Be it desegregation, woman’s rights, environmental crackdowns upon corporations, judicial rights, or civil rights, this time was a hot bed for long-term public opinion changes. And the Supreme Court paralleled these changes, by making some of the most important rulings in American History.

(Miranda v. Arizona, Brown v. Board of Ed., Abington v. Schempp)

And I argue that consistent with reality, long-term public opinion should absolutely be included in decision making. In the long run, American history would show itself to work towards equality and justice (in their most symbolic definitions). These cultural changes, like expanded suffrage and equal protection for all races and religions, are inevitable and healthy. And as such, Justices should keep cultural changes in mind when writing decisions.

Therefore, the more logical question then is, should the Supreme Court let temporary public opinion affect its decisions? I will use Terri Schiavo as my fulcrum.

The Supreme Court consistently denied Terri Schiavo’s parents’ appeals to hear their case. Judging by the number of protesters outside the hospital where she was, temporary public opinion would have had the justices hear the case, but holding their grounds, the Supreme Court did not budge, as they shouldn’t have.

Unlike Congress or the presidency, the Supreme Court is not supposed to be a "political" institution. And as such they had to answer the question…Is there a real issue at hand with Terri Schiavo that has real ideological consequences? Of course not. The courts ruled according to the law and the Constitution as it has recently been interpreted. There is no intrinsic injustice in the right-to-life v. right-to-death debate, so taking public opinion into consideration, would not serve the greater good (as did many cases in the mid 20th century) but only muddy future interpretational questions.

Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life terms for the specific reason that they should not be influenced by the winds of temporary public opinion. If the fore fathers wanted the Supreme Court to be held accountable to constituents (temporary public opinion), they would have made the justices elected. Justices have an obligation to the law, not to the people.

Then, in my most ideological conclusion, if Supreme Court Justices held to what they should do, all present and future debates over Supreme Court nominations would be nonsensical. Judges would recognize and tend to positive cultural changes but would not be affected by temporary hype. Now whether or not a specific nominee will actually do what he or she should is a whole different question, which will be inevitably be discussed in a different post.