SC judicial or political body

Theme 1

Politicised appointment process vs independence post confirmation

For 1

Politicised appointment process

-replacement of Anthony Kennedy with Brett Kavanaugh 2018, Amy coney Barrett (2020) criticised for rushing appointment by Trump and senate Rep with 27 days confirmation process 2nd shortest to appoint her place before presidential election → shifting SC from body where swing justices decide on outcome, stable conservative majority 6-3, allowing decision that benefited the President, overturn of roe v wade 1973 with Dobbs v jackson 2022, Barrett confirmation being final piece necessary to achieve Overturn

-students for fair admission v Harvard 2023, removed affirmative action in uni admission

Against 1

Independence of SC justice once appointed, protected from political interference by life tenure

-presidents can’t reliably predict voting pattern of SC justice

-Chief justice Robert’s despite appointed by Rep president George w bush, often sided with liberal on cases like NFIB v Sebelius 2012 Upheld affordable care act

-2 trump appointees (gorsuch Barrett) Against trump tariff 2026

-judicial independence limit executive overreach protect separation of power checks and balances

Theme 2

Judicial activism vs judicial deference

For 2

influence over national social policies, by being able to strike down legislation and executive action, impose binding rule on all states

-Obergefell v Hodges 2015, removed all state bans on same sex marriage

-Dobbs v jackson 2022, removed federal protection of abortion, giving back policy autonomy to state legislature, reducing protection over abortion rights

→ demonstrate judicial activism undermine Congress role as sovereign authority over legislature

Against 2

such decision based on constitution and legal precedent rather than ideological pursuit: political consequence of SC decision is inevitable outcome, their independence should be judged by consistent application of legal precedent and constitutional principle

-Dobbs v Jackson, justified in terms of federalism and limit on federal gov authority, preventing executive overreach

-often judicial restraint seen on cases involving national Security

Trump v Hawaii 2018, SC sided with trump allowing him to keep travel ban from Muslim countries based on national security grounds despite concerns over religious discrimination

-rulings derive from constitutional principles not judicial ideology

Theme 3

Judicial rulings based on ideological split

-Bush v Gore 2000

-5-4 split Give presidency to George w Bush

-trump v united state 2024

6-3 split five Trump full immunity over action done during presidency, struck down some criminal prosecution of trump for his alleged role in inciting capital hill riots 2021

-ideological split, influencing how judges interpret constitutional principles

Against 3

most common ruling 9-0 unanimous ruling 2000-2022

90% of cases have at least 1 liberal justice siding with majority

-decision made solely on interpretation of constitution, legal precedent,

High degree of concedes between justices despite different judicial philosophy

Boston v Clayton county, both supported expansion of LGBTQ rights protection for employees , court impartially even in politically sensitive cases