is SC more of a judicial or political body?

for

more judicial:

more political:

The Supreme Court often bases decisions on established legal principles, maintaining consistency in the law

  • Example: Roe v. Wade (1973) stood as precedent for nearly 50 years before being overturned, showing a long-standing judicial principle at work.

  • Statistic: From 1816 to 2020, the Supreme Court overturned 145 out of approximately 25,000 decisions, indicating a preference for precedent

The nomination process reflects political motives, as justices often align with the ideologies of the president who nominated them

  • Statistic: Republican-appointed justices outnumber Democrat-appointed ones 6-3 on the current Court (as of 2023)

The Court’s primary role is to interpret the Constitution and apply it impartially

  • Example: In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Court invalidated racial segregation based on constitutional equality, adhering to legal principles over public opinion

The Court has made landmark rulings that align with contemporary political movements

  • Example: Citizens United v. FEC (2010) expanded corporate political spending, aligning with conservative views on free speech and deregulation

The judiciary relies on the executive branch to enforce its decisions, which limits its influence to legal judgments rather than political enforcement

  • The Court had no power to enforce Worcester v. Georgia (1832), where President Andrew Jackson refused to comply

Lifetime appointments give justices long-term influence over national policy, often beyond the presidency that appointed them

  • Example: Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed in 1991, continues to shape decisions nearly three decades later

against

against judiciality:

against politicality:

Judges often interpret the Constitution in ways that align with contemporary political ideologies

  • Example: Roe v. Wade (1973) and Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organisation (2022) reflect shifting political ideologies among justices

Once confirmed, justices are insulated from political pressures due to life tenure

  • Example: Chief Justice John Roberts has sided with both liberal and conservative justices, notably in upholding the Affordable Care Act in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012)

Justices are nominated by presidents and confirmed by the Senate, often along partisan lines

  • Statistic: Since 2000, the Senate has become increasingly partisan in confirmations. For example, Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed in 2020 with a 52-48 vote, strictly along party lines

Decisions are based on legal reasoning, not political pressures, with oral arguments and written opinions reflecting detailed legal debates

  • Example: In West Virginia v. EPA (2022), the Court curtailed the EPA’s authority, citing the legal principle of the “major questions doctrine,” not overt political motivations

Decisions on controversial cases sometimes coincide with political climates or elections

  • Example: The decision in Bush v. Gore (2000) effectively determined the presidential election, with many arguing it had political overtones

The judiciary acts as a check on legislative and executive power, not as an extension of it

  • Example: In United States v. Nixon (1974), the Court compelled President Nixon to release the Watergate tapes, limiting executive power

The Court’s primary role is to interpret the Constitution and apply it impartially

  • therefore cannot be described as ‘political,’ as this implies the presence of bias that would present the Constitution as advantageous to one side of the spectrum

  • Example: In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Court invalidated racial segregation based on constitutional equality, adhering to legal principles over public opinion, and thus any sort of political bias

AGAINST

HOWEVER one may argue that judges are increasingly interpreting the Constitution in ways that align with contemporary political ideologies as seen with the overturning of Roe v Wade by Dobbs v Jackson, but then we have judicial restraint, with which the Supreme Court evidently recognises its singularly judicial position, as mentioned earlier with the case of the NFIB vs Sebelius, where Chief Justice Roberts concluded that because the ACA was classified as a federal tax, and federal taxes are allowed under the Constitution, the law was therefore acceptable