Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Congressional influence on SCOTUS ideology

politicophile · 10-06-2005, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Ideology and the Spirit of the Laws

Politicophile

The Constitution creates a relationship between the Supreme Court and the Congress in which the legislative has significant influence over the composition and function of the Court. For example, the House and Senate are given, respectively, the power to impeach and remove judges from office, and the Senate may reject the President’s judicial nominees. Through the use of these powers, Congress has the capacity to influence the ideological direction of the Supreme Court, should it choose to do so. Ambiguity arises, however, in determining whether and to what extent consideration of judicial ideology in Congressional decisions related to the Court is constitutionally appropriate. Rightly interpreted, the Constitution informs Congressmen that votes on Supreme Court nominations and impeachment actions should be based entirely on the grounds of general judicial competence and the Justice/nominee’s commitment to upholding the text of the Constitution: judicial ideology should not be a concern.

Congress is first able to influence potential Justices during the confirmation process, as all nominees must be approved by the Senate before they can be sworn in. “[The President], by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint… Judges of the Supreme Court.” The Constitution does not provide guidelines for determining the sort of candidates that should be consented to, however. As a result, there has been significant debate in the Senate over what standard should be used.

As was stated previously, Senators should look at two factors when they are studying the qualifications of a nominee: judicial competence and commitment to the Constitution. The first of these is a prudential consideration: the Supreme Court is a powerful and influential organization that should be comprised of the greatest legal minds of a generation. Justices should have extensive knowledge of the legal system, as well as a comprehensive understanding of Court precedent. All potential Justices should, at a minimum, be well-versed in constitutional law and the history of the Supreme Court.

Secondly, nominees must prove to the Senate that they will faithfully interpret the Constitution and not use their position of judicial power to “legislate from the bench”. Nominees should be able to state explicitly that their rulings will be directly connected to their interpretation of the Constitution (and thereby, the original text). As C. Boyden Gray explained to Congress, “In our democracy, decisions on major political issues should be made by the people and their elected representatives, not by unelected judges.”

Part of the reason that ideology becomes a key issue in Supreme Court battles is that the Court, although not technically a legislative body, has the ability to profoundly affect national policy. As a consequence, it is vital for a political party to have their general ideology supported by a majority of Justices. But despite the convenience of packing the Court with party loyalists, the Constitution opposes the practice, as it explicitly grants all legislative authority to the Congress. Ideology only truly matters when the Court assumes the improper role of partisan legislative body. Yet, some continue to maintain that ideology should not be disregarded because, in reality, a Justice’s political views can have a profound impact on their rulings. In his testimony to Congress, Professor Cass Sunstein defended the importance of taking ideology into consideration: