Think judges rule independently of their ideologies?

"The justices decided about 20 percent of their cases on 5-to-4 votes, which is in line with recent terms. But the number of 5-to-4 decisions in which the court’s four liberals found themselves on one side and its four conservatives on the other was high: 12 of the 14 closely divided cases were configured that way, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy casting the decisive vote.

The justices like to say they are merely applying legal principles to facts without regard to ideology. But the chances of nine truly independent judges finding themselves in just two configurations a dozen times out of 14 is remote. Professor Epstein and Andrew D. Martin, a political scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, calculated the odds as 1 in 44.2 quintillion."

http://www.goupstate.com/article/20...me-Court-s-term-dominated-by-first-amendment-

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." - Thomas Jefferson

Anyone with an inkling of understanding of the human psyche wouldn't need to think about that for more than a second.

Judges = human beings = subjective and fallible.

Every single decision they make is based on their personality and beliefs. Doesn't mean they necessarily ignore justice - but it necessarily means that their intepretation of justice will be affected by their personality and beliefs.

They are politically elected so what did you expect?

I didn't expect anything.

DArtagnan said:

I didn't expect anything.

Click to expand...

I meant to OP.

hishadow said:

They are politically elected so what did you expect?

Click to expand...

Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and server for life (or retirement). They are not elected at any point.

So, they're appointed by an elected politician and that's supposed to make a difference?

blatantninja said:

Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and server for life (or retirement). They are not elected at any point.

Click to expand...

Elected was the wrong word, I should have used appointed. My point doesn't change. Hell, the mere fact that you can refer to them as liberal and concervative judges should be proof enough.

I'm not saying they don't rule based on their ideologies, they do. And I'm glad they do. It's at least somewhat honest compared to a politician that has one ideology, but changes it, bends it, goes against it if he/she thinks it will help him/her in the polls. For the most part, we know what we are getting when they go through the confirmation process.

And yes, DArtagnan, it does make a difference. The SCotUS has the unique ability to render rulings with ZERO fear of public or political backlash. It makes them truly independent from the rest of the government, once confirmed.

I'm not saying that I agree with all their rulings, I certainly don't. I'm also not saying that I agree with all their ideologies, I don't. But the fact that they can't be bound by any backroom deals, political maneuverings, etc. that occur to get them the post, is extremely valuable to our society. Perfect? Of course not.

And anyone that is a liberal should love the set up. There's an old saying "No one ever gets more conservative on the Supreme Court."

blatantninja said:

And yes, DArtagnan, it does make a difference. The SCotUS has the unique ability to render rulings with ZERO fear of public or political backlash. It makes them truly independent from the rest of the government, once confirmed.

Click to expand...

It makes zero difference to the point I was making, though. Also, having to be appointed by a president requires you to be favorable from his point of view, doesn't it.

I'm sorry, but I really have no respect for human integrity that would make me believe such a process is any less compromised than all other political decisions.

And anyone that is a liberal should love the set up. There's an old saying "No one ever gets more conservative on the Supreme Court."

Click to expand...

Let's not get into what I would love

DArtagnan said:

It makes zero difference to the point I was making, though.

Click to expand...

Fair enough in that you were talking about personal ideology.

Also, having to be appointed by a president requires you to be favorable from his point of view, doesn't it.

Click to expand...

Yes, but given the pendulum swing we see of US politics, and that the Justices serve for decades at a time, you ten to end up with a fairly evenly divided court.

I'm sorry, but I really have no respect for human integrity that would make me believe such a process is any less compromised than all other political decisions.

Click to expand...

That's sad, as the SCotUS is one of the few governmental institutions that deserves respect.

Considering how politicized and corrupt is has become recently, it has lost most of my respect. And, it is a shame.

Michael Ellis said:

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." - Thomas Jefferson

Click to expand...

Jefferson was right, and that's why SCOTUS are not the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. All they can do it call a law unconstitutional. Splitting hairs, maybe, but the Congress can always modify the law and pass it again.

What places us under the despotism of an oligarchy is the fact that the great majority of our elected officials are rich, white lawyers with connections, financial and otherwise, to Big Business.

Of course, that's a pretty good description of our founding fathers as well.

White has nothing to do with it, there's no need to play the race card. There are plenty of corrupt black elected officials.

It's also important to note that people nominated to SCOTUS have often not reflected the policies of the President nominating.

Souter, Stevens, Kennedy, and O'Conner were/are either liberal or moderate. *shrug*

You can find more examples if you go back further in time.